Military Review

By 2018, only one “Shark” will remain in the Russian Navy

264
Over the next few months, the Russian Navy will receive two new strategic submarines of the 955 Borey project. One of them is already on the sea trials, and the second will soon begin to them. However, the increase in the share of the new material part of the Navy will be made not only through the supply of new ships and submarines. In the future, will continue to write off the old technology, as evidenced by recent reports.




Recently RIA News With reference to a source in the defense industry announced information about the upcoming decommissioning of old submarines. According to an unnamed representative of the defense industry, until the end of the current 2013 year, two strategic submarine missile carriers, which are currently in reserve, will be excluded from the Navy. These will be the submarines of the Shark project 941. Submarines TK-17 "Arkhangelsk" and TK-20 "Severstal" are planned to be written off and then disposed of. It is assumed that by 2018, both submarines will cease to exist. Thus, out of six submarines of this type built, only one will remain in the ranks - TK-208 “Dmitry Donskoy”.

Probably, plans for the disposal of boats are still the most general. So, the same news agency quotes a representative of the Zvezdochka shipyard (Severodvinsk), according to which the company has not yet received any information about a future order. In this case, most likely, it is the Severodvinsk plant that will deal with the disposal of the Sharks, since it had previously had similar experience. Over the past few years, it was Zvezdochka who has divided the metal of the submarine TK-202, TK-12 "Simbirsk" and TK-13. Now the list of submarines of the 941 project dismantled at the enterprise will be replenished with two more points.

As for the last submarine of the same project, TK-208 "Dmitry Donskoy", it will remain in service for the time being. In the future, it is planned to use it as a stand for developing new weapons. In recent years, “Dmitry Donskoy” served as a test platform, with the help of which the R-30 “Bulava” missile was refined. This rocket, as well as its first carrier, has already been put into service, so some questions may arise regarding the further fate of the TK-208 submarine. Perhaps, in the future, it will experience some new missile systems.

As we see, the Dmitry Donskoy submarine was saved from decommissioning by modernization and change of its mission. Other boats of the 941 project had previously undergone repairs, but are now physically and morally obsolete. For this reason, the subject of a possible write-off "Sharks" regularly raised in recent years. Now, it seems, talk about the possible disposal of these submarines has led to the emergence of a final solution.



One of the main reasons for the expected write-off of submarines was the problem of armament. The rocket complex of these submarines D-19 used three-stage solid propellant ballistic missiles R-39. A part of the units of these rockets was manufactured at the Yuzhmash plant in Dnepropetrovsk, which after the collapse of the Soviet Union went over to an independent Ukraine. Due to problems with production logistics, the production of P-39 missiles ceased at the very beginning of the nineties. In addition, the use of solid fuel engines adversely affected the shelf life of missiles. As a result, in the 2004 year, the Arkhangelsk and Severstal submarines were put into reserve due to the lack of missiles suitable for exploitation. Last fall, it became known about the completion of the disposal of all missiles of the P-39 type, which were stored in the warehouses of the Navy.

Thus, ten years ago the navy of Russia actually lost the 941 submarines due to the absence of their main armament. For this reason, and also because of the difficult financial situation of the past years, the Sharks have not been updated and modernized so far. From time to time there were proposals to re-equip all the existing submarines of this type for the use of new Bulava missiles, but they remained at the conversational stage. The ability to use the P-30 missiles received only one submarine of the 941 project, which is currently considered solely as a test platform.

The main reason for refusing modernization was probably the financial side of such work. In the spring of last year, information appeared that the “Sharks” update with a change in the composition of equipment and weapons would be too expensive. According to ITAR-TASS, published with reference to its sources, the modernization of one submarine of the 941 project, bringing it to an acceptable type, will require financial investments equivalent to the costs of building two new 955 submarines at once.

Ultimately, it turns out that, with all its advantages, the strategic submarines of the 941 “Shark” project in the present conditions constitute a real financial burden for the Ministry of Defense and the country as a whole. In the present state, they cannot perform the tasks assigned to them, and the maintenance of unused ships costs a considerable amount. There is no better option with their modernization, which is not too good balance of benefits and financial costs. In such conditions, a way out that is obvious and beneficial in financial terms, although at the same time very morally disagreeable, can only be the cancellation of submarines and their subsequent utilization. Unfortunately, the events that began even before the collapse of the Soviet Union did not contribute to the long and successful service of the world's largest submarines.

By 2018, only one “Shark” will remain in the Russian Navy


On the materials of the sites:
http://ria.ru/
http://vz.ru/
http://itar-tass.com/
http://flot.com/
Author:
264 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. mark1
    mark1 23 May 2013 07: 35
    +8
    Some kind of pro-American dug in the Ministry of Defense. There is no need to modernize the boats, they already exist as they are (far from bad). It is necessary to adapt the existing missiles for these boats. The same "Bulava" - to adapt the control system, add a 4th stage (it is the first) and all this will be much cheaper than "building two Boreis" (although this may be a problem)
    PySy "Bulava" as an example, other options are possible
    1. donchepano
      donchepano 23 May 2013 08: 41
      +9
      Quote: mark1
      Some kind of pro-American dug in the Ministry of Defense.


      We continue to destroy and reduce our not the worst weapons. Oh well.
      Satan destroyed, Tu 160 chopped
      The government probably wants to transfer troops to carts and so that the soldiers defend themselves with axes and spears
      1. Ataman
        Ataman 23 May 2013 10: 36
        36
        The most important parameter of a strategic nuclear submarine is not the size or even the number of missiles, but stealth, which is determined by low noise at the moment. This is excellently written in this article.
        http://topwar.ru/27911-istoriya-odnoy-fotografii.html
        If the "strategist" is easy to spot, then there can be no question of any retaliatory weapon. I do not know how much the Borei are superior to the Sharks in this regard, this information is more secret than the Bulava device. But the replacement probably makes sense.
        And the content of "Sharks" is really expensive. If I'm not mistaken, special piers were built for them and the fairway was deepened. Everything is correctly written in the article, (+).
        1. mark1
          mark1 23 May 2013 11: 07
          18
          By itself, the large size of the nuclear submarine is, of course, a minus and not a plus, but the large size of the mines allows us to place longer-range missiles, and this in turn allows us to place the SSBN patrol zone near our shores in the area of ​​responsibility of our anti-submarine forces, which dramatically increases the safety of patrolling our boats. Of course, there is no competition between the Boreyevs and Sharks, just for the period of putting in a sufficient number of boats pr 955A (and there will be 8 of them in total), it would be logical to leave a couple of three very formidable boats pr 941 in service (all the more that they already have "special piers and a deepened fairway")
          1. Delta
            Delta 23 May 2013 11: 21
            +5
            Quote: mark1
            somehow it is logical to leave in service a couple of three very formidable boats pr 941 (especially since they already have "special piers and a deepened fairway

            Do you have rockets for them ???
            1. mark1
              mark1 23 May 2013 11: 28
              +1
              Read the posted above.
              1. PLO
                PLO 23 May 2013 13: 29
                12
                Read the posted above.

                there are no ready-made missiles, it is necessary to make a new one.
                Do you want to pump up a lot of money in order to equip only 2 (or 3) submarines that have already "worked out" half of their resource, so that in at least five years (if everything is perfect) they could serve only another 10-15 years?

                if you rearm, then right now on ready-made missiles, and of these only Bulava
                1. Ataman
                  Ataman 23 May 2013 16: 56
                  +5
                  That's it!
                  Distance between cities: Murmansk and Washington is 6764.0 km
                  Distance between Seattle and Vladivostok is 7595.7 km
                  I even somewhere saw a map of the area of ​​destruction of the Mace when starting from a submarine standing at the pier. A range of 8000 - 9300 km (this is the range of launch according to various sources) is enough.
                  The weight of the warhead is 95 kg. Multiply by 6. Add the dilution module. And we get that the cast mass of 1150 kg is also sufficient.
                  It’s pointless to develop another longer-range missile or discharged mass.
                  1. mark1
                    mark1 23 May 2013 18: 44
                    +3
                    And you heard about such a thing as missile defense means, it also weighs a lot and the more sophisticated it is, the heavier it is, so that the mass to be thrown is a very important indicator, moreover, the issue of using non-nuclear warheads is considered, then it’s already difficult to talk about mass then object (but you can try ...)
                    1. Ataman
                      Ataman 23 May 2013 23: 17
                      0
                      If you know how much this thing weighs, or rather the complex of these pieces, then why not write it?
                      Why did you unambiguously relate the whole range of missile defense systems to such a parameter as an abandoned mass?
                      Please tell me who is considering the issue of installing non-nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles and for what purpose? It seems that they are no longer firing at the sparrows from the cannon.
                      1. mark1
                        mark1 24 May 2013 06: 02
                        +2
                        "Throw weight is the most important parameter characterizing the level of combat effectiveness of one missile or group of missiles. It includes not only the weight of the warheads, but also the total weight of the last stage of the missile, which carries out the rejection of the warheads, the weight of its control system and fuel."
                        The missile defense penetration system includes light and heavy warhead simulators (more than a dozen), electronic warfare equipment, maneuvering equipment, and much more that you and I do not know. An example is the R-36 Voevoda ICBM, with a throw weight of 8,5 tons, it carries only 10 warheads - the rest is a means of overcoming missile defense, for which the Americans "love" it
                        The issue of installing a non-nuclear warhead on an ICBM has long been considered primarily by Americans (and, accordingly, by us, as their counterpart). It arose in connection with a sharp increase in the accuracy of ICBMs (KVO 90-120m in the future to 30) and the arising possibility of delivering high-precision strikes against a number of protected strategic targets on the enemy’s territory without the use of nuclear weapons, which in turn reduces the risk of an armed conflict escalating into a nuclear one.
                2. mark1
                  mark1 23 May 2013 18: 50
                  +1
                  for olp Well, for starters, do not do but modify the existing one, I indicated one of the options above (for example). In general, now in the KB them. Makeeva, together with the Chelomeevites, is developing a new liquid ICBM (starting mass 105tn), so it can be adapted for the Akula, especially since it is their bread for Makeevites. I will answer right away - the difference in the type of fuel does not change anything, the start can be done dry. And there would be a desire to solve the problem - the problem will be solved.
                  1. Boa kaa
                    Boa kaa 23 May 2013 21: 25
                    +3
                    Quote: mark1
                    I’ll answer right away - the difference in the form of fuel does not change anything, the start can also be made dry. Yes, and there would be a desire to solve the problem - the problem will be solved.

                    I don’t know, I don’t know ... It has a membrane for Amers, but the ICBM is solid fuel, and our Satan and Mace mortar dry using PAD. But about liquid ... Maybe they’ll come up with it. But we even have a surface launch of a rocket engine from water-filled silos.
                    1. mark1
                      mark1 23 May 2013 22: 08
                      0
                      Well, the simplest thing that comes to mind is to put a solid-propellant launch stage below to take the rocket out from under the water, but I also heard about the elaboration of some more cunning method by the Makeyevites based on the interaction of rocket fuel with water on the "cold" one, the resulting gas pushes a rocket out of the water.
                      I apologize for the nebulous information, but I heard it out of the corner of my ear and so far I have not really figured it out myself. Perhaps you even know more than me.
                      1. Ataman
                        Ataman 23 May 2013 23: 43
                        0
                        The advantages of solid rocket engines:
                        1) Engine simplicity
                        2) Higher dynamics, allowing to reduce the acceleration section of the trajectory
                        3) Higher reliability. Because damage to a liquid rocket causing a spill of fuel also causes the death of the boat.
                        There are still a lot of reasons, both in favor of solid fuel and in favor of liquid rockets. But the main one, in my opinion: stop shy, switched to solid fuel, so switched.
                        Remember the expression. What is the strength of the army? Monotony!
                      2. mark1
                        mark1 24 May 2013 06: 22
                        +1
                        We haven’t gone anywhere yet, we are just getting started. The main submarine ICBM is P29 in all its guises, she is "Sineva" she is "Liner". All 9 Project 667 SSBNs are sailing with them, and the Bulava is still in trial operation.
                  2. mark1
                    mark1 24 May 2013 06: 16
                    0
                    For Boa KAA RU For your information - "Satan" R-36, UR-100 - liquid land-based ICBMs, the launch is made from the mine by a mortar method, the first stage engines are switched on at an altitude of 20m.
                    When choosing a "wet" launch method, in addition to the simpler launch of liquid-propellant rocket engines for the beginning of the 60s, the problem of keeping the nuclear submarine at a depth after the missile was released was more simply solved, the Americans with their "dry" start solved this problem for a long time.
              2. Kommunisten
                Kommunisten 1 June 2013 01: 28
                0
                Sineva / Liner, no, not heard?
          2. Civil
            Civil 23 May 2013 20: 47
            0
            if there are no rockets for them ... then how did it happen ?!
            1. Ataman
              Ataman 23 May 2013 23: 48
              0
              it is written in the sixth paragraph of the article wink
      2. rolik
        rolik 23 May 2013 17: 50
        +7
        Quote: Ataman
        And the content of "Sharks" is really expensive.

        I put a plus sign. The content is really not cheap. But ... why kill a good carrier. There was such an idea to make submarines out of them, pull out the inside and equip two large holds. The idea, in my opinion, is very interesting. Trucks independent of ice conditions. But apparently they nevertheless decided to write off that very, very sorry (((
      3. Papakiko
        Papakiko 23 May 2013 18: 19
        +2
        Quote: Ataman
        The most important parameter of a strategic nuclear submarine is not the size or even the number of missiles, and the secrecy, which is determined at the moment by low noise.

        Stealth-stealth and once again stealth.
        And how can such a colossus be guaranteed to be hidden and hushed up !?
        NO HOW!
        From the very beginning, 941 projects are more like SCARPs were rebuilt.
        Now they need to be used at least as deep-water stations for studying the seabed or as a platform for special operations forces. Although 500 meters of diving is clearly not enough, and we do not sort out our relations with the Banana Republics.

        Quote: mark1
        but the large size of the silos allows for the deployment of longer-range missiles, and this in turn allows us to place the SSBN patrol zone near our shores in the area of ​​responsibility of our anti-submarine forces, which dramatically increases the safety of patrolling our boats. Of course, there is no competition between the Boreyevs and Sharks, just for the period of putting in a sufficient number of boats pr 955A (and there will be 8 of them in total), it would be logical to leave a couple of three very formidable boats pr 941

        I strongly agree with these words.

        Only
        Quote: mark1
        in the area of ​​responsibility of our anti-submarine forces
        where are these forces? crying
        1. mark1
          mark1 23 May 2013 18: 53
          +4
          Nevertheless, the shadow of this "scarecrow" still scares the amers ...
          And the PLO forces need to be developed, since they pissed away, otherwise the Boreyam would not just be unaccompanied
          1. evil hamster
            evil hamster 23 May 2013 22: 07
            0
            How can 2 boats without missiles, being in reserve for 10 years already, scare the US Nevi? Than? chtole torpedo tubes? About your pearl with the thrust of a new mine ICBM at Shark - it's generally beyond good and evil. Return already from your reality to the sinful earth.
            1. mark1
              mark1 24 May 2013 06: 37
              0
              And what do you propose to discuss, salivating, how many dozens of atomic aircraft carriers we will build by 2020? Or even some little real crap? At least I’m trying to give at least some less realistic proposal. Nothing is impossible here, you just need a desire to restore the sun and not cut the loot. And these boats scare amers with their potential to place something very big and terrible in the mines
      4. Edward
        Edward 23 May 2013 20: 16
        +3
        The maintenance of Sharks is not more expensive than the construction of new, possibly more wonderful boats, but which have one big drawback: - they simply do not.
        Shark-built piers are plus and not minus!

        A strategist can work without leaving the pier.
        Therefore, the noise about which they argue is a silly topic. It is for the strategist.

        The scrap of our defense industry.
        They used to say (because they knew): "everything will fit in the farm!" and today all at once to the scrap .. Why such haste?
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 23 May 2013 22: 09
          +2
          Quote: Edward
          The maintenance of Sharks is not more expensive than the construction of new, possibly more wonderful boats, but which have one big drawback: - they simply do not.

          One way or another, "Boreas" are running. In fact, these are the only nuclear submarines so far launched into series.

          Quote: Edward
          A strategist can work without leaving the pier. Therefore, the noise about which they argue is a silly topic. It is for the strategist.


          If a strategist can ONLY work from the pier, why is he needed. It is easier to give its functions to a pair of Strategic Missile Forces regiments. Noisiness is also very important for SSBNs. Covert combat patrol is their main function, and the ability to fire from the pier is a "useful addition"
          1. Edward
            Edward 27 May 2013 08: 08
            0
            Quote: Bronis
            One way or another, "Boreas" are running. In fact, these are the only nuclear submarines so far launched into series.
            It’s very good that the Boreas are being built!
            Quote: Bronis
            If a strategist can work ONLY from the pier, why is it needed.
            Did I talk about "only"?! ..
            Noise is fundamentally important for the Hunters, those who protect the Strategists.
            "At the pier" is necessary and can be understood not as directly "at the pier", but also "inside the territorial waters", which is enough for a potential aggressor to put it in his pants.
            In a word, it’s silly to write off boats, they need to be modernized!
        2. Nik One
          Nik One 23 May 2013 23: 39
          0
          And what about the fact that a strategist can work from the pier?
          Do you propose making stationary launchers out of these boats? And what for are they?
          The submarine is a retaliatory weapon, so stealth is important.
          And their "Sharks" could, if desired, make underwater trucks, or carriers of non-nuclear cruise missiles.
        3. Delta
          Delta 24 May 2013 10: 17
          +1
          Quote: Edward
          A strategist can work without leaving the pier.

          why then submarines? let the missiles stand in ground-based mines))
      5. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 23 May 2013 20: 24
        +3
        Quote: Ataman
        . If I’m not mistaken, then for them they built special piers and deepened the fairway. Everything is correctly written in the article, (+).

        Dear Ataman, I am reporting to you: all the SN trials were consolidated into 18 diplomas of the Northern Fleet, which was based in Nerpichya Bay. The piers were built so that ICBMs could be loaded from them. The depth there is about 80-100m, so there is nothing to deepen. Most of all I remembered the vigilance "brought to the highest limits" and the "livestock". Who is in the subject knows what it is.
    2. Lighting
      Lighting 23 May 2013 17: 58
      -3
      Quote: donchepano
      Tu 160 chopped

      So he has no tasks. Can do nothing but carry X-55. The Americans had the F-117, also did not know how. He, too, was cut without finding tasks.
      1. Bronis
        Bronis 23 May 2013 22: 17
        +3
        Quote: Lighting
        Tu 160 chopped

        The Tu-160 was hacked in (on) Ukraine due to the fact that he could carry the X-55, which the Americans really did not like. Tu-160 is not the worst platform for its purposes, unlike the F-117.
        It is quite possible to teach the Swans to operate long-range non-nuclear missile launchers, which they will do. Well, you can't make a fighter out of it for objective reasons. laughing
        Only the first prototype of the Tu-160 will be "hacked to death", which is understandable.
    3. evil hamster
      evil hamster 23 May 2013 22: 10
      -2
      Quote: donchepano
      We continue to destroy and reduce our not the worst weapons. Oh well.
      Satan destroyed
      Shield? Wake up.
      Quote: donchepano
      Tu 160 chopped
      Shield 2 ?. Get off the drug at the same time
      1. donchepano
        donchepano 24 May 2013 10: 40
        0
        you are not so angry as a hysterical choleric.
        Mushrooms probably licked in the morning
        1. evil hamster
          evil hamster 26 May 2013 13: 37
          0
          And that is, evidence of your delirium will not follow, as expected.
    4. Kommunisten
      Kommunisten 1 June 2013 01: 37
      0
      They shook the pride of the fleet, they seriously do not understand that these are not just boats, but a symbol of the power of the submarine fleet?
      Everyone promises, promises, but plainly BDK Ivan Gren cannot finish building 10 years with a displacement of 5000 tons ..
      Where there are submarines of 50000 thousand. tons, with a durable case made of stainless titanium alloys and innovative design solutions, many of which no one has been able to repeat so far.
      Breaking does not build. Shame, nothing more to say.
  2. krokodil25
    krokodil25 23 May 2013 08: 44
    +1
    You see, it’s expensive to upgrade, whoever counts money there, who has brains on bikren go .. well, in short, everyone who made this decision !!! am angry
  3. Russian
    Russian 23 May 2013 09: 40
    +2
    Quote: mark1
    Some kind of pro-American dug in the Ministry of Defense


    Hmm, tell that to our defenders of power — Alton and John travolta. Although, if they even write nicknames in 3,14ndskoy language, then everything becomes clear right away. And I would say not only in defense mines, but in all power!
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 23 May 2013 12: 48
      +2
      And I would say not only in defense mines, but in all power!

      And you tell me a clear reason to leave them.
      1. NUT
        NUT 23 May 2013 17: 01
        +7
        Even a full, drunk drunk will not think of it at the beginning of winter to throw away old warm boots and barefoot in the cold to wait until they invent and make new warm shoes. Created, launched, experienced the best in all respects - then you can safely destroy these Russian Beauties ...
        1. Edward
          Edward 23 May 2013 20: 36
          +4
          Glad you said!
          Relieved from the soul ... it seemed that only idiots were alive!
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. NUT
        NUT 23 May 2013 17: 25
        13
        Not a single full, drunk withered in the middle of winter will think of fiercely throwing out old, but warm, sound boots and wait barefoot in the cold when they construct and sew new shoes. In exchange, create, launch, test, adopt the most modern, latest, most powerful, and only then destroy these true Russian Beauties ...
        1. nycsson
          nycsson 23 May 2013 22: 45
          0
          Quote: NUT
          Not a single full, drunk withered in the middle of winter will think of fiercely throwing out old, but warm, sound boots and wait barefoot in the cold when they construct and sew new shoes. In exchange, create, launch, test, adopt the most modern, latest, most powerful, and only then destroy these true Russian Beauties ...

          All right! hi
        2. Sen-mird
          Sen-mird 24 May 2013 21: 27
          +3
          And it used to be
          1. Barracuda148
            Barracuda148 25 May 2013 15: 48
            +1
            I saw it too
  4. orkibotu
    orkibotu 23 May 2013 09: 51
    0
    You guys do not understand the situation at all! it's just easy to throw empty words into the wind ... I think they’re doing it right ... we need boreas, that’s really cool
    1. Genry
      Genry 23 May 2013 10: 30
      14
      Boreas! Boreas?
      Not in them, but in serviceable submarines.
      It is necessary to dismantle military equipment and transfer it for experimental operation as a tanker and bulk carrier (with alteration and extension) for the northern sea route. Military bases in the north will be created, and they will need to be equipped at any time of the year.
    2. ozs
      ozs 23 May 2013 10: 44
      16
      let the taburetkins go around, and there will be money to upgrade two sharks.
      But the authorities cannot afford this, since the contents of the stool and his team strengthen the country's defense capabilities much more than some sharks.
  5. w.ebdo.g
    w.ebdo.g 23 May 2013 09: 59
    +7
    it is best to remake the shark under an international underwater laboratory for ocean researchers and transfer it for maintenance from the scientific community.
    attracting funds from around the world ...
    let the whole world contain it like the ISS in orbit.
    there is an international station in space, here an underwater station will be ...
    I think that the idea is good and quite iminievaya for Russia)))

    1. mark1
      mark1 23 May 2013 11: 32
      +7
      Then, in the underwater casino - it will pay off faster
    2. Edward
      Edward 23 May 2013 21: 03
      +4
      Good, nice and stupid idea) ..
      This idea is better than dumb scrap.

      We gave MIR, the ISS appeared.
      Let's give the Sharks - what will appear? .. ISSM (Orsk) G (Lubin)?

      Precisely because Shark technology is what all the intelligence services of the world are hunting for - precisely because they should be in the ranks of the Russian Navy, which is possible (!) To be able to repeat such a triumph in its latest developments.

      941 is not the last century!
      941 is the pillar of our future.
      I speak without pathos.
      1. xtur
        xtur 24 May 2013 14: 04
        +2
        I just can't figure out if it was so pointless to convert the "Sharks" into missile submarine cruisers with anti-ship missiles and air defense systems for use as part of the AUG?
        it's about 300-400 different missiles of anti-ship missiles and air defense
  6. mark1
    mark1 23 May 2013 10: 46
    +2
    I see - the "pro-American" has revived and began to actively minus.
    1. 755962
      755962 23 May 2013 11: 10
      +8
      Well, if so, then at least let them leave it as a museum .. For posterity.
      Because recycling is no less expensive than operation.
      And so at least some memory will remain. Sorry for "Shark" ..
      1. PLO
        PLO 23 May 2013 13: 32
        +3
        Well, if so, then at least let them leave it as a museum .. For posterity.

        for the museum Dmitry Donskoy is, he will have a richer story
        although I doubt that they will go broke on such a thing
  7. MAN
    MAN 23 May 2013 12: 11
    0
    And what's the point of upgrading them? The contents of these submarines cost our country a pretty penny (1,5-2 times more expensive than submarines of a similar purpose). And at the expense of modernization: it is DEFINITELY expensive, in their current condition (and it is very deplorable sad ) These are the pies what
    1. ozs
      ozs 23 May 2013 12: 39
      +7
      Of course, it’s better to buy any line, contain stools, rosnans, etc.
    2. Edward
      Edward 23 May 2013 21: 12
      +3
      And the point is to give birth to you, feed, drink, teach .. etc.?
      The content of our Army, including those like BOATS - is this not an indicator of the human and technical development of OUR (like any other) country ?!
      1. ozs
        ozs 24 May 2013 00: 51
        +1
        in the current reality, unfortunately, they don’t contain an army, and all sorts of stools and others earn on it
    3. xtur
      xtur 24 May 2013 14: 11
      +1
      > (1,5-2 times more expensive than submarines of a similar purpose).

      so they are more than twice as large in displacement
  8. kris
    kris 23 May 2013 13: 27
    +2
    Quote: mark1
    Some kind of pro-American dug in the Ministry of Defense.

    and disposed of this type of boat with American money.
  9. NUT
    NUT 23 May 2013 15: 54
    +1
    Quote: mark1
    Some kind of pro-American dug in the Ministry of Defense. No need to upgrade boats, they already are what they are (far from bad)

    In 2006 Congress passed the "National Defense Authorization Act", requiring that the "Iova" class battleships be kept and maintained in a state of readiness should they ever again. Congress has ordered that the following measures be implemented to ensure that, if need be, Iova can be returned to active duty:
    1) Iova must not be altered in any way that would impair her militari utility.
    2) The battleship must be present condition.
    3) Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch dun barrels and projectiles must be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iova, if reactivated.
    4) The Navy must prepare plans for the Iova should she be returned to duty in the even of a national emergency ...
  10. reichsmarshal
    reichsmarshal 23 May 2013 21: 36
    0
    Two Boreas are ALWAYS better than one Shark, since they can be in different places, respectively, ceteris paribus, the possibility of a retaliatory strike from 2 boreas is higher than from one Shark. Another thing is that whatever one may say, each of the Boreans will take at best 6-7 years.
  • 955535
    955535 23 May 2013 07: 35
    +9
    In fact, "Sharks" have long been out of the combat composition of the fleet. And the strategic missile carriers do not fulfill their purpose. Even the TK-208, after its repair, was used to test the Bulava. Sometimes it goes out to sea to provide tests for other ships.
    1. Mikado
      Mikado 23 May 2013 07: 44
      14
      what prevents them from being repaired, modernized and sent to sea? Expensive? I am not a professional in this matter and it may be true, but I am confused by two facts. First, these ships are not even very bad in their performance characteristics. Second, I remember well the days of Borka the drunk, when our "experts", under the same cries about the high cost, cut the boats of the third generation, the United States even allocated money for this, despite the fact that the second and even the first generation was not touched by anyone.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 23 May 2013 08: 21
        +6
        Quote: Mikado
        despite the fact that no one touched the second and even the first generation.
        A similar opinion is that earlier boats can be repaired and operated in our country, and the toad strangles the "Sharks". Having paraphrased the words from the song, I just want to say - traitors, traitors, all around are traitors! ...
      2. leon-iv
        leon-iv 23 May 2013 12: 59
        +4
        Under EBEN they didn’t build new right now they are building new strategists. And in July the 5th lay 955.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 23 May 2013 15: 52
          +3
          Quote: leon-iv
          When Ebony did not build new

          The first submarine of project 955 was enlisted in the lists of the Russian Navy on August 19, 1995 under the name "St. Petersburg". On May 1, 1996, the ship changed its name and became known as "Yuri Dolgoruky." Under this name, the submarine was laid down on November 2, 1996.
          In 1996 EBENE, President of the Russian Federation
          1. evil hamster
            evil hamster 23 May 2013 22: 17
            0
            From only it was another project for another rocket. and laying does not mean building. And they began to build it really with the very comrade whose name is unshakable and unpronounceable in a liberal and some patriotic environment.
      3. seller trucks
        seller trucks 23 May 2013 15: 20
        +1
        I am not a submariner, but I have devoted 5 years to the Navy, I saw Akula class boats alive (Murmansk 140, Zapadnaya Litsa), the spectacle is not transferable, it’s not the essence, so there is such a thing as “metal fatigue”, given what loads the submersible is experiencing at depths, the write-off is just explicable. The service life of submarines is on average 25 - 30 years.
        1. rolik
          rolik 23 May 2013 17: 56
          +5
          Quote: seller trucks
          The service life of submarines is on average 25-30 years.

          This is a technical service life. But it, with certain types of activities, can be extended by another 50-70%. We need, in total, two conditions, the desire to do it and the financial opportunity to realize this desire
          1. seller trucks
            seller trucks 24 May 2013 11: 06
            +1
            Yes, I will not argue, just forgive me, if there are no cartridges for the machine gun, then why the heck you need it, and you still suggest doing an upgrade. beautiful expensive but essentially a "piece" of iron, isn't it?
            1. rolik
              rolik 24 May 2013 16: 36
              0
              Quote: seller trucks
              beautiful expensive but essentially a "piece" of iron, isn't it?

              There are so many technologies in this "piece of iron" bully
              1. Denis
                Denis 24 May 2013 17: 26
                +1
                Quote: rolik
                There are so many technologies in this "piece of iron"
                A lot and not just not the technologically advanced, even intangible-invested soul of the creators. Otherwise, there would not have been
        2. Edward
          Edward 23 May 2013 21: 40
          +3
          And what does the concept of "metal fatigue" mean ?!
          probably about knowing what metal 441 ("Sharks") are made of!
          You are not a submariner, as you said.
          Then, maybe you are just a TV presenter of a local channel?
          Or maybe a metallurgist?

          Can you imagine the daily load on conventional rail tracks?
          Tell me, is this more or less than Shark wear?
          1. seller trucks
            seller trucks 24 May 2013 11: 14
            0
            Quote: Edward
            Then, maybe you are just a TV presenter of a local channel?
            Or maybe a metallurgist?


            The Lord is with you, neither one nor the other, but I repeat the Navy of the SF I gave 5 years, so:
            "The sea water and the atmosphere have a significant corrosive effect on the ship's hull, and therefore on the materials used in it. The occurrence and development of corrosion processes lead to irreversible changes in the structure of materials, chemical transformations on their surface, and in some types of corrosion, the inner layers of the material, which, as a rule, causes a decrease in the indicators of mechanical strength and, in particular, fatigue strength. "

            Khonikevich A. A. “Chemistry and corrosion in shipbuilding”

            It is better?
            1. rolik
              rolik 24 May 2013 14: 45
              +1
              Quote: seller trucks
              The emergence and development of corrosion processes lead to irreversible changes in the structure of materials

              This is correct, but the main cause of material wear is dynamic loads. Which are not fully compensated by the set (frames). Dips and ascents lead to the fact that the metal "stretches" loses its plasticity, its lattice becomes more "loose". But, as already mentioned, this can be completely eliminated by applying a certain type of measures to extend the service life.
              By the way, the fatigue of metal, at one time, greatly annoyed Westerners. Not only in shipbuilding, but also in aircraft manufacturers. An example of this is the Kometa passenger aircraft. They were produced in the 60s. Incomprehensible catastrophes in the air began to occur with them, began to fall apart during the flight. The reason was found, though not immediately, the fatigue of the metal next to the window openings affected. The metal in these places, from the dynamic loads of expansion - compression, aged and gave microcracks. And in flight it turned out to be a fatal accident. We got out of the situation by replacing square windows with round ones and additional reinforcement of adjacent surfaces.
              1. seller trucks
                seller trucks 24 May 2013 15: 53
                +2
                Quote: rolik
                But, as already mentioned, this is completely eliminated by applying a certain type of measures to extend the service life.


                and now about the price of the issue of renewal:
                "The annual cost of maintaining the technical readiness of heavy submarine cruisers of project 941, such as Dmitry Donskoy, amounted to 300 million rubles. Extension of the service life of one submarine missile submarine of project 667BDRM cost about 180 million rubles., Nuclear submarine missile cruiser (APRK) of project 949A - 160 million rubles, multipurpose nuclear submarine - 140 million rubles. All in all, just to extend the turnaround time, the fleet needed about 8 billion rubles annually, which far exceeded the provided funding limit. "

                "Military Review": http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2007-06-08/7_submarine.html

                "According to unofficial information, the cost of one lead ship of Project 955 Borey, Yuri Dolgoruky, is about 23 billion rubles. For comparison, about 300 million rubles are spent annually on maintaining only the technical readiness of Dmitry Donskoy."

                Read more: http://www.km.ru/v-rossii/2013/05/21/ministerstvo-oborony-rf/711157-dve-podvodny
                e-lodki-klassa-akula-pustyat-pod-nozh
                1. rolik
                  rolik 24 May 2013 16: 33
                  +3
                  Quote: seller trucks
                  and now about the price of the issue of renewal:

                  I have already said above that in order to extend the service life, you need a desire and material support for this desire. on which I continue to insist. If it's easier to cut, hold the flag. But it is much better to convert it into an underwater truck, and the idea was already there, regardless of the ice situation. But in the beloved Moscow Region, they say that this alteration will cost tens of billions of rubles. I would like to add that the idea to transform the Shark into a truck was born at Sevmash. And our beloved MO, speaking of an expensive alteration, cannot absorb a simple thing. Having spent on alterations, he will save on ice escort, race for deadlines during northern delivery. And the savings will be far greater than the conversion costs.
                2. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 25 May 2013 16: 26
                  +1
                  Quote: seller trucks
                  "The annual cost of maintaining the technical readiness of heavy submarine cruisers of project 941, such as Dmitry Donskoy, amounted to 300 million rubles. Extension of the service life of one submarine missile submarine of project 667BDRM cost about 180 million rubles., Nuclear submarine missile cruiser (APRK) of project 949A - 160 million rubles, multipurpose nuclear submarine - 140 million rubles.
                  "Maintaining technical readiness" by almost ANY of Serdyukov's deputies cost the country MUCH more expensively. lol
              2. Edward
                Edward 25 May 2013 22: 13
                0
                I agree with you.
                In addition to the concept of "metal fatigue" there is also a "metal memory", the violation of which leads to "fatigue" and further to corrosion. This occurs when the normal operating conditions are exceeded many times. The number of calculated dives / ascents can be theoretically and practically infinite.
                Sharks can not be written off or even converted into toys - they just need to replace the filling and bring in new cosmetics!
  • knyazDmitriy
    knyazDmitriy 23 May 2013 07: 45
    0
    good afternoon

    if I’m wrong, correct, as far as I know, that P 39 is a liquid fuel rocket, not solid
  • mark1
    mark1 23 May 2013 07: 47
    +7
    You are wrong - P39 solid fuel
  • pinecone
    pinecone 23 May 2013 07: 52
    +7
    Quote: knyazDmitriy
    good afternoon

    if I’m wrong, correct, as far as I know, that P 39 is a liquid fuel rocket, not solid


    Solid fuel, three-stage, intercontinental.
  • Aristarch
    Aristarch 23 May 2013 08: 03
    11
    They have a huge potential for modernization, and with this aim they were built. Is it really so mediocre, barbaric, to take them into account will be resolved? Maybe it's easier to ask Serdyukov with Vasiliev’s money?)
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 23 May 2013 08: 27
      +4
      Quote: Aristarchus
      Maybe it's easier to ask Serdyukov with Vasiliev’s money?)

      It’s better to finally take it back and return it to the budget.
    2. krokodil25
      krokodil25 23 May 2013 08: 39
      +4
      Quote: Aristarchus
      Maybe it's easier to ask Serdyukov with Vasiliev’s money?

      Not to ask and confiscate everything stolen and stolen, I think there is not only enough for modernization, but also for the construction of new sharks, although I think that unfortunately there will not be anything request No.
      1. Aristarch
        Aristarch 23 May 2013 08: 45
        +3
        I’m only for, pick up, confiscate, return, take away, squeeze, trim, as you like, but so that they (sharks) are returned to duty.
      2. Lomikus
        Lomikus 24 May 2013 21: 30
        -1
        In order to condemn and confiscate the loot from Western agents (Gorbachev, Serdyukov, Navalny, etc.) you need to have independence and sovereignty from the West, but how to do it when the economy and the media are controlled by the West. We were colonized in the 90s thanks to Gorbi. So until we return to control the main levers of government, there will be no order anywhere.
  • Apollo
    Apollo 23 May 2013 08: 04
    13
    Good morning everybody hi

    The film, shot at Sevmash, is dedicated to the 941th anniversary of the Project XNUMX Akula nuclear-powered submarine cruisers.
    The video tells about the modernization of the Dmitry Donskoy spacecraft and the tests of the Bulava missiles installed on it

    1. Aristarch
      Aristarch 23 May 2013 08: 37
      +5
      A good film, I liked the last one; .. "there is a rocket giant, and the seagulls see off with a cry - the master of the deep sea."
  • ABV
    ABV 23 May 2013 08: 06
    12
    Mania - just to repair it and let it float (it floats) as it can --- tired of it already. RESTORE a rusted shark - this is not a pan to clear of scale !!! and modernization ??? for it, ALL systems need to be redesigned and set up for release! the release of MULTIPLE nodes, additional R&D ... and the operation is too expensive .... the construction of a new Borea is really cheaper than restoring the Shark ... and the characteristics of Boreev are much higher ...
    I’m in a hurry to work, I would write more ...
    1. Aristarch
      Aristarch 23 May 2013 08: 27
      +6
      You are not surprised that the Americans, too, what do you think? let them say they are building new ones, but these need to be cut. Yes, really, in our country there will be no billion rubles to bring them to mind.
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 23 May 2013 13: 26
        +6
        Yes, really, in our country there will be no billion rubles to bring them to mind.

        here it’s already 10ki billion rubles and most importantly the slipway place, and this = the brake of commissioning 955.
        1. Aristarch
          Aristarch 23 May 2013 14: 04
          +2
          Survived, due to the lack of a slipway, if so, cutting masterpieces of engineering and design, thereby undermining the security of our country. Yes, the amers simply press on these sharks, because they understand very well that if they are modernized, then we will have an obvious advantage.
          1. leon-iv
            leon-iv 23 May 2013 14: 06
            +6
            Survived, due to the lack of a slipway, if so, cutting masterpieces of engineering and design, thereby undermining the security of our country.

            The collapse of the USSR and Yuzhmash undermined them. which has become an independent. And now the question is what is better to build 955 or 941 to upgrade?
            1. Aristarch
              Aristarch 23 May 2013 14: 11
              +4
              Why are we in the bazaar or something, and then, and then the region as necessary. And then, the point here is clearly not in money and stocks, but in the pressure or their destruction. Well this is my opinion.
              1. leon-iv
                leon-iv 23 May 2013 14: 22
                +4
                And then, the point here is clearly not in money and stocks, but in the pressure or their destruction.

                Yes, where does the pressure for them do not and there will be no missiles all point. And you need to create them for at least 5-6 years.
                And the slipway is .... Have you seen Sevmash?
                1. Aristarch
                  Aristarch 23 May 2013 14: 31
                  +2
                  I will give an example, the nuclear submarine "Dolphins" should have also been put under the knife, but earlier in the Makeyevka Center they began independently, knowing this problem, to resolve the issue of their main armament. And "Sineva" was created, which in turn extended the life of these nuclear submarines until the end of this decade and maintained parity in this regard. The question is, is it really possible to give assignments to such RCs, it is impossible to adapt the mines, change the equipment, software accordingly, in a word, everything that is needed for their life? It is possible, there would only be political will, and by the way, I do not want to substitute the RC, but I read somewhere that they would have coped with this task.
                  1. leon-iv
                    leon-iv 23 May 2013 14: 52
                    +5
                    Here's the nuance. There are fundamentally different missiles. Makeevtsy are liquid rockets and the R-39 is solid fuel. Everything is different there and the difference is fundamental there. Although they took part in the work.
                    Now, according to the Makeyevites, they are now loaded with work.
                    1 Blue / Liner is a marine component
                    2 New heavy missile to replace Voivode.

                    Mitu is also not up to it. He has a new generation of Clubs and Yars.
                    1. Aristarch
                      Aristarch 23 May 2013 15: 02
                      0
                      Okay, the Voivode knows better, I hope they know what they are doing.
                      Thanks for the conversation.
                    2. mark1
                      mark1 23 May 2013 19: 03
                      +1
                      Here's point 2 is quite suitable for "Shark" in terms of weight and dimensions and the specifics of the developer, and the way of starting ... making it dry is not a problem.
                      And the R-39 is developed by the design bureau im. Makeeva, as well as the subsequent R-39UTTH "Bark"
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 23 May 2013 16: 12
          +2
          Quote: leon-iv
          slipway

          At the plant, they will still occupy a slipway place, in any case, they will either cut, or upgrade.
          1. evil hamster
            evil hamster 23 May 2013 22: 29
            0
            No, nobody will cut them in Sevmash’s 55th workshop, but you can only upgrade them there, he doesn’t climb anywhere else. And that means taking the place of the Boreans.
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 23 May 2013 23: 10
              +2
              Quote: evil hamster
              And that means taking the place of the Boreans.
              When the ship is serial, a place in the workshop he needs only for six months. The rest of the time - completion afloat at the mooring wall
              1. evil hamster
                evil hamster 24 May 2013 01: 01
                0
                Dear, it was probably so in the USSR when Sevmash the nuclear submarine pitch like pies now unfortunately is not so. Monomakh emnip - was in the shop for 5 years, maybe by the end of the series they can accelerate to 3 years old but they can’t reach the previous pace.
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 24 May 2013 09: 43
                  0
                  Quote: evil hamster
                  so it must have been in the USSR when Sevmash peaked nuclear submarines like pies
                  In the workshop there is only the assembly of finished blocks with the installation of basic equipment and systems for maintaining buoyancy. For everything else, a stay in the workshop is not required. So the length of stay in the workshop is more dependent on suppliers than on the factory
    2. mark1
      mark1 23 May 2013 08: 31
      16
      I think not so much they rusted, that everything needs to be changed, because they were not in an abandoned state. It is not entirely correct to compare the Borei with the Sharks - the Shark can carry very powerful missiles that are invulnerable to missile defense, which is not realistic for Borey due to the significantly smaller mines. We want to spend a lot of money to restore the cruisers pr 1144 (which is true in itself), dream of dozens of aircraft carriers, but we start babbling something about the high cost when it becomes possible to restore a much more powerful and effective weapon, the analogue of which our country is already unlikely when will it build (and hardly anyone else in the world)
    3. donchepano
      donchepano 23 May 2013 08: 49
      +1
      Quote: ABV
      .construction of the new Borea, really cheaper than the restoration of the Shark ... and the characteristics of the Boreans are much higher ...


      This is not the case in honor of the fight-drunk cyanotic name was assigned, which you so kindly offer?
      1. Vrungel78
        Vrungel78 23 May 2013 09: 13
        +5
        Borey - Wikipedia
        Borei (dr. Greek Βορέας, Βοῤῥᾶς "northern") - in Greek mythology the personification of the northern stormy wind. Mentioned in the Iliad (V 524 and others), Odyssey (V 296). Boreas was the son of Astrea (the god of the starry sky) and Eos (the goddess of the morning dawn) ...
        en.wikipedia.org ›Wikipedia› Northwind copy more
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 23 May 2013 19: 10
        0
        Yes, you're right.
        The name Borea, of course, was awarded in honor of Borka the drunk ... by the ancient Greeks wink
    4. Delta
      Delta 23 May 2013 10: 37
      +2
      Quote: ABV
      Mania - just to repair it and let it float (it floats) as it can --- tired of it already. RESTORE a rusted shark - this is not a pan to clear of scale !!!

      I support. As they say about skyscrapers, they are not built because it is conditioned by needs and they do not bring any income, more than smaller houses. They are built solely for the sake of vanity. So it is with "Sharks". Built as an answer to "Ohio", on the principle of "catch up and overtake" But they could not catch up with the Ohio either in noise characteristics (still, twice as much) or in the number of missiles (24 versus 20). So what to recover? What is the point? for the size of the Guinness Book of Records?
    5. Misantrop
      Misantrop 23 May 2013 23: 06
      +3
      Quote: ABV
      Mania - just to repair it and let it float (it floats) as it can --- tired of it already.

      The country has always lacked funds for underwater landing nuclear submarines, although they started designing several times. Now we have TWO giants, which have nowhere to go, since the missiles have served a resource. And if you redesign them for landing? Not so expensive alteration will come out, and not too complicated
  • SANAY
    SANAY 23 May 2013 08: 06
    15
    We know how to saw. Well, why "Ohio" is transferred to cruise missiles, and we are our most awesome ships under the "Bulgarian"? Maybe take your time and weigh everything. No one has such nuclear-powered ships! How to steal billions, so not a single official can be imprisoned, but as for the army and the navy, something concerns with one movement of the little finger decisions are made. Decisions must be absolutely thoughtful. First, two new "Boreas" in operation, then something to decide on one "Shark". And then, something to take away from us quickly. Break, don't build!
    1. djon3volta
      djon3volta 23 May 2013 08: 26
      -1
      Quote: SANAY
      Well, why "Ohio" is transferred to cruise missiles, and we are our most awesome ships under the "Bulgarian"?

      because the United States has a printing press, and can print billions of empty candy wrappers and give them out in the form of salaries. Russia has no way to print empty wrappers and give out salaries.
      why do you think the United States has the largest military budget in the world and is almost 700 billion dollars a year? because they just turned on the machine, poured paints, cut paper, printed bucks and sent these empty pieces of paper to different enterprises and factories to give people salaries . Why do you always forget about this fact?
      Or do you think a crane operator who lowers a cruise missile in an "Ohio" does it for free? but a slinger, and a driver who brought a missile, and those who made it at a factory, they work for a bowl of soup? They all get paid. If they are not given a salary, they won't budge! and in order for them to work, you have to print dollars 24 hours a day and distribute them in the form of salaries.
      1. ozs
        ozs 23 May 2013 10: 51
        +9
        Russia has no opportunity to print empty candy wrappers and give out salaries.

        But here, the authorities donate dozens of billions of billions to all kinds of Chubais stools and others, correctly they are more important for strengthening the country's defense capability than any sharks there.

        So, it’s good to poison the bikes here, although they print candy wrappers, but they are used competently, and ours can only cut metal.
        They clung to these boreas, and if you look at how much was deliberately destroyed, then no bore can replace it.
        1. Nitup
          Nitup 23 May 2013 12: 34
          -3
          Quote: ozs
          But here, the authorities donate dozens of billions of billions to all kinds of Chubais stools and others, correctly they are more important for strengthening the country's defense capability than any sharks there.

          If you think that this is only stolen in Russia, you are mistaken. In the US, corruption is no less. It is even legalized there - the lobby is called.
          1. ozs
            ozs 23 May 2013 12: 56
            +2
            they do not steal from us, we are engaged in the sale and destruction of former greatness at the state level. And quite high-ranking people are doing this. Do you imagine a play with the participation of a stool, somewhere in China or the United States, Germany? Or can you imagine that the country would sell weapons-grade uranium to its probable adversary, or for example would encourage outright villains and traitors, Chubais, Gorbachevs, etc. Or maybe you imagine that, for example, any self-respecting country would begin to rewrite history and agree to compare ss and smersh.

            That is why we do not need sharks, and we will "build" aircraft carriers after 2020, and Stouretkin has not been shot, but is bathed in luxury, although now nothing is heard about him, probably already where the thread is already in London
      2. vkusniikorj
        vkusniikorj 23 May 2013 11: 40
        +1
        tell me John’s three-bolt! and for Russia’s hell is your pipipax? that's why there is NO SUCH in Russia, what you need to buy from you? if only you could bring all our democrats from the last whore to the first and second gay and exchange them for a stabilization fund, did would!
    2. old man54
      old man54 23 May 2013 19: 50
      0
      your golden words!
  • Denis
    Denis 23 May 2013 08: 13
    10
    Is not it too early? And so already with the perseverance of a maniac and the joy of an idiot how much is cut ...
    And if tomorrow is war?
    1. SANAY
      SANAY 23 May 2013 08: 27
      +4
      From! And I'm talking about too !!!!
    2. Dangerous
      Dangerous 23 May 2013 08: 31
      0
      Using nuclear submarines and nuclear weapons ???
    3. shurup
      shurup 23 May 2013 08: 34
      +2
      And if tomorrow the price of oil falls?
      Well, nothing, we will buy boats from the French for the money that is stored in America. The French are not accustomed to taking their money from Amers.
      We kill the flock of hares right away.
  • Dimkapvo
    Dimkapvo 23 May 2013 08: 29
    +9
    I absolutely do not understand in boats, but Sharks are proud of their appearance. I think that our engineers could not invest such a limited modernization resource in such serious ships. Surely there is a sense and opportunity to extend their life, but apparently you can steal more from the construction of a new boat. Well, I do not believe in these cuts with good intentions ...
    1. shamil
      shamil 23 May 2013 09: 22
      +7
      such colossals need to constantly be in the sea and not rusted up. At the berth, it also gets old, the reactor counts its time
    2. old man54
      old man54 23 May 2013 19: 58
      +3
      Quote: DimkaPVO
      Surely there is a sense and opportunity to extend their life, but apparently you can steal more from the construction of a new boat. Well, I do not believe in these cuts with good intentions ...

      Woah! Right in 10! there, and during construction, you can steal a lot and awesome awards to developers and creators!
  • igor-75
    igor-75 23 May 2013 08: 38
    10 th
    And why, if you don't need it, not sell it to the same Chinese or Japanese? "Varyag" sold?
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 23 May 2013 09: 16
      +6
      Quote: igor-75
      And why, if you don't need it, not sell it to the same Chinese or Japanese? "Varyag" sold?

      If the "Sharks" are sold to the Chinese, then the military power of China will double. These two boats could destroy the continent. The point of these boats is that it is very difficult for them to prevent them from performing their main task.
      1. Delta
        Delta 23 May 2013 10: 17
        +2
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        These two boats can destroy the continent.

        To do this, it remains to find rockets for them
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 23 May 2013 11: 32
          +2
          Quote: Delta
          To do this, it remains to find rockets for them

          As if the Chinese, a year later, "Barks" in the mines did not stand.
        2. mark1
          mark1 23 May 2013 12: 08
          +3
          Missiles should not be sought and done
          1. Delta
            Delta 23 May 2013 12: 25
            +1
            Quote: mark1
            Missiles should not be sought and done

            if still not done, then probably not from reluctance
            1. ozs
              ozs 23 May 2013 12: 59
              +2
              just from him.
              Bark ruined almost finished rocket and got a hard-flying mace.
              1. leon-iv
                leon-iv 23 May 2013 13: 33
                +3
                Bark ruined almost finished rocket and got a hard-flying mace.

                No bark, this generation is old. The mace is many times better in terms of overcoming missile defense + much less auth (which was the reason)
            2. mark1
              mark1 23 May 2013 13: 16
              +1
              [quote = Delta] if still not done, then probably not from reluctance [/ qu
              Yeah, probably out of stupidity and innate love for the American nation.
        3. M. Peter
          M. Peter 23 May 2013 18: 13
          -1
          Quote: Delta
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          These two boats can destroy the continent.
          To do this, it remains to find rockets for them

          The comrade probably had that if the continent would be destroyed by a ram. smile
      2. M. Peter
        M. Peter 23 May 2013 18: 11
        +1
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        If the "Sharks" are sold to the Chinese, then the military power of China will double.

        Plus, at the same time financially undermine the eastern neighbor, not really increasing its military power. smile
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 23 May 2013 22: 16
          +1
          Quote: M.Pyotr
          The comrade probably had that if the continent would be destroyed by a ram.

          Quote: M.Pyotr
          Plus, at the same time financially undermine the eastern neighbor, not really increasing its combat power

          Very subtle and witty. You do not accidentally trade?
          And at the expense of financially undermining China, it was very funny.
          1. M. Peter
            M. Peter 24 May 2013 19: 29
            0
            Yes, it's just a little funny to read people's comments. From these boats for the country, in fact, there is no use, only financial waste, they will not increase the combat effectiveness of the fleet, only a formidable VIEW, no more. They have nothing to shoot ...
            Do you know why sharks are also called "water carriers"? winked
    2. shamil
      shamil 23 May 2013 11: 27
      +2
      then they will make needles out of them and throw them at us
  • Petrovich-2
    Petrovich-2 23 May 2013 08: 39
    0
    Um. Another weird article. Very ambiguous in meaning.
  • Mareman Vasilich
    Mareman Vasilich 23 May 2013 09: 05
    +3
    In order to make wise and correct decisions in such cases, an independent government must exist in the country. In the meantime, such as Chubais, Medvedev, Serdyukov, Shoigu, Kudrin, Putin, Fursenko, Golikova, Matvienko and the like shine for us, our friends do not shine. Great powers have nuclear weapons, and globalists do not consider us a great power (to some extent, they are right), here is the result.
    1. El13
      El13 23 May 2013 14: 47
      +1
      Quote: Mareman Vasilich
      us friends nothing shines

      And you, friends, do not sit down ...
      Hare should be a panic, it’s better to look around and compare it with the past decades, or you can look further abroad 1991 ... It is truly said: who does not regret the USSR - he has no means, he who wants to return - he has no reason. It is necessary to return not the USSR, but to create a new Empire, in a new quality, at a different level, and this is happening now, look and remember, so that there is something to tell children (grandchildren) later.
      1. Mareman Vasilich
        Mareman Vasilich 23 May 2013 16: 04
        +4
        And who drove us into such an ass in past decades? The best way to fool a people is to strip it to the skin, and then toss it a little, and he will be afraid of those times when he was ripped off, while forgetting who ripped him off. Learn more closely all the reforms of the current government.
        You are raving, saying that now something is being created.
        And you don’t know anything about the history of the USSR.
        1. El13
          El13 23 May 2013 16: 34
          -1
          That's how, I wonder, you brought out the last statement, if you and I didn't even talk about history ... And people are fed everywhere, somewhere more, somewhere less, in our Union they fed less (I remember), they fed to fabulous debts, now they do not know how to clean it up, I think we are now in a good position of equilibrium (I mean feeding), feed a little more and we will actively reproduce. And about ripped off to the skin ... Well, yes, in the 90s all savings died, but before that, too, it was like that, only "Bonds of the state loan" can be remembered ... Only having those savings to buy something there was a problem - there were queues for everything, while there was a total shortage of everyday things, which they don't even remember now, and the number of varieties of sausage can no longer be mentioned ... Therefore, I think our country had to go through the ashes of this fire in order to be reborn on a new level, we just have not yet reached all those heights that were, but it will, will be ... not all at once. Most of all, I am concerned about the moral and ideological foundations of our today's life, plus education, here we have to actively scratch, otherwise the seams ...
        2. Orchestrarant
          Orchestrarant 23 May 2013 20: 33
          -2
          Vasilich! Do not disgrace the all-prosralist, and change the avatar of Verkhoany GKO to Nemtsov. am laughing
          1. ozs
            ozs 24 May 2013 01: 05
            +1
            and what is not lost? As I understand it, you approve of Serdyukov’s reform, justify the distribution of territories, rewriting of history, the destruction of sharks, station world, continue? Or are you enough?
            So when you answer whether you are justifying or not, then the Germans will hang labels, the current government is not very different from the Germans’s team,
      2. Orchestrarant
        Orchestrarant 23 May 2013 20: 42
        +1
        Children, grandchildren, what are you talking about? Mareman supports the ideas - (the chef is all gone, the plaster is removed). Tomorrow is the end of the world, for a certain country, it’s time for you and I to sprinkle our heads with ashes! laughing That's it, I went to dig the bunker! soldier smile
  • shamil
    shamil 23 May 2013 09: 07
    15 th
    a large floating coffin - one salvo and it will be destroyed and non-fact that the shark in case of a sudden military conflict will be allowed to leave the pier immediately sank and with a mace all problems Sorry for the shark as a symbol of past greatness
    1. El13
      El13 23 May 2013 14: 51
      +3
      scat ... unclean
  • aszzz888
    aszzz888 23 May 2013 09: 13
    +8
    Quote: shamil
    a large floating coffin - one salvo and it will be destroyed and non-fact that the shark in case of a sudden military conflict will be allowed to leave the pier immediately sank and with a mace all problems Sorry for the shark as a symbol of past greatness

    Have you ever seen a live boat? This is me because somehow you have the wrong line of thought about a modern boat.
    1. Don
      Don 23 May 2013 10: 31
      +5
      In fact, just the Shark project submarines are considered the most tenacious because of the peculiarity of their design. All other submarines have one solid hull, and Sharks have two. It’s like two submarines connected together.
    2. shamil
      shamil 23 May 2013 10: 51
      0
      saw!! and although it meets the modern requirements of intimidation, it is outdated financially, occupy all the enemies who are watching and know everything about it. You need to build new ones and not upgrade them. It's like patching an old fence patching, then you think -You had to build a new one and a long time ago
      1. Scoun
        Scoun 23 May 2013 13: 37
        +2
        Quote: shamil
        It's like an old fence patching up patching, then you think -You had to build a new one and a long time ago

        Here is just an option or just columns from it to stay without a fence at all .. either patched up capitally but expensively or ruined and then build a new one for a long time.
        To be honest, I don’t even know what to choose, to repair if there aren’t any missiles .. it’s also pointless .. in general, I hope that Shoigu will make an informed decision.
  • shamil
    shamil 23 May 2013 09: 15
    +2
    in the beginning it is necessary to replenish the fleet with new models of modern weapons, maintain and modernize the astaroe, but there is no money for ent-serdyukov
  • Suhov
    Suhov 23 May 2013 09: 28
    +2
    There will be no "Sharks", what will the "stickers" do?
    what
  • igor-75
    igor-75 23 May 2013 09: 37
    11
    Quote: saturn.mmm
    Quote: igor-75
    And why, if you don't need it, not sell it to the same Chinese or Japanese? "Varyag" sold?

    If the "Sharks" are sold to the Chinese, then the military power of China will double. These two boats could destroy the continent. The point of these boats is that it is very difficult for them to prevent them from performing their main task.

    the paradox turns out - we will cut it ourselves since it is no longer an atomic submarine cruiser, but a heap of rusty iron, but we will not sell it, because the Chinese or Japanese can make a strong trump card from this rusty iron in geopolitical showdowns laughing
    1. El13
      El13 23 May 2013 15: 03
      +1
      I used to pass my old Passat for disassembly for 10tyr., Tk. he knew all the ins and outs of him and knew that he was not safe, although he could sell it two to three times more expensive, and to bring him to a safe condition for driving was worth 50 thousand. But if he were to use a deaf village for transporting potatoes, he would very much still served (where there is no way to drive fast and there is no heavy traffic). So it is necessary to consider not only the object itself, but also the environment and other conditions (including geopolitical, if we are talking about such a ship). Similarly: the old is not bad, but the old sofa (there is no summer house), you take it to the trash, because neighbors don’t need, a new one is needed at home, and his place is taken. But in a thread of the outback, this sofa would be torn off with your hands.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 23 May 2013 23: 20
      +2
      Quote: igor-75
      because the Chinese or Japanese from this rusty iron will be able to make a strong trump card in the geopolitical showdown

      The picture shows the oldest boat from the Sharks. Not too bad for rusty iron, starting just over a year ago.
  • Ivan Mechanic
    Ivan Mechanic 23 May 2013 09: 46
    +6
    If there are no missiles, why not convert the boats to deliver sabotage groups anywhere in the world. Amer did just that with a couple of his Los Angeles. Moreover, the amount of free space allows you to take out not just a bunch!
    1. Vrungel78
      Vrungel78 23 May 2013 12: 21
      +2
      Dear locomotive succeed. Yes, and our concept is defense, and not quiet, like .indos
    2. evil hamster
      evil hamster 23 May 2013 22: 38
      -1
      And you look at the size and purpose of the moose, and then on the Shark I think the question will disappear by itself
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 23 May 2013 22: 56
        +1
        Quote: evil hamster
        And you look at the size and purpose of the moose, and then on the Shark

        I looked. So what? A moose can deliver a dozen saboteurs. Shark - a battalion with standard equipment, space inside and displacement is enough above the head. Or not, is there a Mistral for this? wink
        1. evil hamster
          evil hamster 24 May 2013 01: 12
          -1
          Not at all an idea, SUDDENLY a divers battalion smile But seriously speaking 941 is too big, too noticeable (well, it is clear that this is of course all "public opinion" as it is only people who will not tell anything smile ) and undoubtedly too expensive for these matters. In addition, there is a rumor that he doesn’t have a lot of hikes in the south because of the cooling of the reactor, I don’t know if this has any ground under him. Someone of their first 971 is much better for these purposes, but this is purely my lamer IMHO.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 24 May 2013 09: 53
            +1
            Quote: evil hamster
            941 - too big
            Project 717 was planned not much smaller in size. 190 m long with a width of 24 m. And also a multi-hull structure. And the cooling of the reactors had nothing to do with it, it was more about providing the missile system. Solid propellant rockets require VERY hard support for microclimate parameters (otherwise the parameters of fuel combustion are too different). Liquid rockets in this regard are much more unpretentious. .And in the airborne variant this problem is removed
  • PROXOR
    PROXOR 23 May 2013 09: 47
    11
    Hmm. Once again I will say. TRAITORS !!!! Traitors sit in the Moscow Region and the Government. Sharks can be re-equipped with new cruise missiles and one such cruiser is enough and the local conflict can be considered exhausted. The SHARK has 20 mines, if I remember correctly, at least 8 CLAB missiles can easily fit into one mine. We have 160 CLAB-M missiles on the mountain. What air defense can withstand a massive salvo of all this?
  • rennim
    rennim 23 May 2013 09: 56
    12
    The "babies" in Kronstadt were also disposed of ... I didn't have enough mind to leave at least one for the museum. But they were not old at all. And with "Typhoons" in general a complete shame. The boat is listed in the "Guinness Book of Records". And now for scrapping ... Sometimes it seems to me that it is better to dispose of some "people". THERE WILL BE MORE USES !!!
  • seed
    seed 23 May 2013 10: 00
    +1
    Quote: ABV
    Mania - just to repair it and let it float (it floats) as it can --- tired of it already. RESTORE a rusted shark - this is not a pan to clear of scale !!! and modernization ??? for it, ALL systems need to be redesigned and set up for release! the release of MULTIPLE nodes, additional R&D ... and the operation is too expensive .... the construction of a new Borea is really cheaper than restoring the Shark ... and the characteristics of Boreev are much higher ...
    I’m in a hurry to work, I would write more ...


    I will support you. Better two (well, let one) new than modernized old. Moreover, they are already 20-30 years old. The case is also not eternal. How much should they serve after modernization? 10-15 years old?
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 23 May 2013 10: 40
      +5
      Quote: seed
      I will support you.

      B-52 last made in 1962 - flies. Minuteman in 1978- flies. All 16 Ohio are in the ranks, and they are also 20-30 years old, and undergo modernization, they are stupid they are probably even weird like the fact that they have world domination.
      Quote: seed
      and the characteristics of Boreev are much higher ...

      Not a single boat is currently capable of performing combat duty, and more than 16 years have passed since the first one was laid.
      Quote: seed
      Moreover, they are already 20-30 years old.
    2. shamil
      shamil 23 May 2013 10: 56
      +4
      only boreans make less than boats write off
  • seed
    seed 23 May 2013 10: 05
    +2
    And I hope that TK-208 will be preserved in the future as a museum.
  • Fuzeler
    Fuzeler 23 May 2013 10: 20
    +3
    "With all its advantages, the strategic submarines of Project 941" Akula "in the current conditions represent a real financial burden for the Ministry of Defense and the country as a whole."
    Yeah, the killogarma of Evgenia Vasilyeva’s jewelry was not a burden for the country and the DEFENSE, and it turns out that the underwater armchair is a burden ....
    And this "Bulava" when aaaa still "takes off", by that time, probably, it will no longer be relevant, for a potential enemy will have something else, superior to us.
    ... ATH, couldn’t we build the missiles for our heavy submarine cruiser? What, wouldn’t there be enough brains? Yes, there would only be enough people and production capacities, if only desire.
    Yes, "Shark" may not be the quietest boat, but it is absolutely ideal for the conditions for which it was created, and its hull, for ice sailing in the Arctic, is much better adapted than other hulls of our and foreign boats.
  • Ascetic
    Ascetic 23 May 2013 10: 22
    13
    Etc. 941 was created for the R-39 missile. And this weapon is not. And not for a long time. The production of R-39 missiles was discontinued in 1990. Then it was assumed that another modification of this rocket would be made further (the preliminary design of the modernized D-19UTTKh complex with the R-39 UTTKh missile was ready in 1987). This complex is known as "Bark". The task was to make the sea-based RK equal to the American Trident-2, which surpassed the P-39 in many respects.
    At the same time, it was envisaged to place this complex on six SSBNs and re-equip them during the next repairs. At the same time, a new concept of naval ICBMs was developed. The lead developer - KB "Mashinostroeniya" and the Institute of Weapons of the Navy proposed the creation by the end of the twentieth century. two solid-propellant missiles, one of which was equipped with RGCHIN (code "Ost"), the other - with a monoblock, maneuvering warhead (code "West"). These intentions were reflected in the draft of the Fleet's Armament Program (AR) for 1991-2000, which also provided for the design and construction of new missile carriers. "Bark" has a flight range of more than 10 thousand kilometers and carries 10 medium-sized nuclear units. The design of the rocket provided for a special system of passage through the ice, providing launch from under the ice shell of the northern latitudes. Also "Bark" could be used both along the usual trajectory and on a flat one. In the first case, the rocket flies from the Barents Sea to Kamchatka in 30 minutes, and in the second - in 17 minutes.
    With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the ensuing sharp collapse in funding for defense orders, work on the complex slowed down, which, quite naturally, led to a decrease in the completeness of testing and failures during testing. In 1998, by a government decision, the creation of the RK D-19UTTKh was terminated, and the re-equipment of one missile carrier was suspended. In 1994, it was announced that the Yury Dolgoruky fourth-generation missile carrier, project 955, on which the D-19UTTKh RK was originally planned, was laid on the NSR's slipway, and a series of such ships was to be built. After the termination of work on the D-19UTTKh complex, this missile carrier was reoriented to service with a new complex with a solid-propellant Bulava missile.
    By 1998, when all work on the modernized complex was closed, it was already impossible to restore production. The key links of Yuzhmash and the Pavlograd Chemical Plant fell out of the production chain, in particular, the latter soon ceased to produce solid rocket fuel.
    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic 23 May 2013 10: 22
      13
      So the problems and systematic "draining" of the Sharks did not begin yesterday, today we are only reaping the final "fruits". It is a pity that these unique boats lost the battle not in the ocean, but in the quiet of offices in the political arena, becoming "hostages" of Gorbachev's treacherous negotiations and the collapse of the country. The Empire's sword was knocked out of hand and the scabbard was rusting at the dock. But many users are asking the question above why they cannot be upgraded following the example of the American "Ohio"? As much as possible, because this potential was laid down in the strategy of the 941 project by the designers of the "Shark" from the beginning, and implied a unique operation. Since the compartment with missiles is located outside the main strong structures of the machine, it was possible to easily cut it out of the submarine, with the further installation of a new mine there for a new rocket. This was the strong point of the 941 complex, unattainable on other missile carriers. That is why "Dmitry Donskoy" was able to become a test base for the creation of missiles for the next, 4th generation of missile carriers.
      Alas, we have lost a lot over the years, the main thing is that regretting the past you need to think about the future. And the Russian SSBN has a future.



    2. vkusniikorj
      vkusniikorj 23 May 2013 11: 27
      +3
      judging by the commentary, you are not a random person in this topic. clarify my misconceptions - why it was impossible to separate and bury the rocket compartment somewhere in the polar region, making the rocket sword forever brought over a probable partner! 300 boats! Yes, our friends from the toilet would not climb.
      1. Delta
        Delta 23 May 2013 11: 44
        0
        Quote: vkusniikorj
        why it was impossible to separate and bury the missile compartment somewhere in the polar region, making the rocket sword forever brought over a probable partner! 300 boats! Yes, our friends from the toilet would not climb.

        because there are restrictions on the number of nuclear warheads and their carriers (START-3 treaty)
      2. Tarpon
        Tarpon 23 May 2013 19: 34
        +1
        Quote: vkusniikorj
        ... - why it was impossible to separate and bury the rocket compartment somewhere in the polar region, making the rocket sword forever brought over a probable partner! 300 boats! Yes, our friends from the toilet would not climb.

        Here is a similar option:
        Until the end of June, factory tests of the latest Skif ballistic missile, capable of being in standby mode on the sea and ocean bottom and at the right time by command to shoot and hit ground and sea targets, will begin in the White Sea.
        Read more: http://www.arms-expo.ru/049057054048124051049055055049.html
  • tchack
    tchack 23 May 2013 10: 22
    +2
    Why not do it normal: two were built - one was written off ...

    Just to cut everything ...
    It is still unknown whether the project 1144 Orlan heavy nuclear missile cruisers, which simply cannot be rebuilt, will be modernized.
    1. donchepano
      donchepano 23 May 2013 10: 36
      +3
      Quote: tchack
      Why not do it normal: two were built - one was decommissioned.


      Better 10 to one. 10 build - write off one
  • Prapor Afonya
    Prapor Afonya 23 May 2013 10: 36
    +1
    Quote: Vladimirets
    Quote: Aristarchus
    Maybe it's easier to ask Serdyukov with Vasiliev’s money?)

    It’s better to finally take it back and return it to the budget.

    I completely agree, take it away, return it to the budget, and shoot these enemies, according to the law of wartime, as traitors !!!
  • valodavoodoo
    valodavoodoo 23 May 2013 11: 14
    16
    You have not been able to modernize for a long time? And in the cab they saw that a couple of mammoth designers remained going on, the youth 1 worked for a maximum of 3 years and a lot of work left, and the salary was like that of a janitor. Grandfathers are under 80, and there is no one to pass on the experience to. Engineers are dismissed, and the management is responsible. Our doors are always open. There are no vocational schools. Turners, milling workers learn at the workplace from working mammoths, some details at the plant can be done only by one person whom they pray and no one else. We must start everything from scratch and value personnel, pay salaries, build factories from scratch, with new equipment, open schools at factories and there are people who want to learn. I have 11 years of experience in an aircraft factory, from technologist to deputy. beg. shop went to a private trader producing honey. technique. There will be an attitude and a decent salary is ready to return. There are thousands of experience as I know now in the country, there are brains, but they do not work by profession, because I want to live in my apartment and drive my own car. Therefore, I think it is necessary to build new boats, and leave these at least as museums so that young people are proud of their ancestors and learn from their experience. That's something so long ago pent. Government on the soap.
    1. Mareman Vasilich
      Mareman Vasilich 23 May 2013 11: 20
      +5
      Gold words. Only now the current government is not interested in all this, they have another order.
    2. M. Peter
      M. Peter 23 May 2013 18: 24
      +3
      Come back ...
      I work at the factory myself. For a long time already youth goes to the factory. Of course, there are few good milling cutters, turners and welders, but it’s not worth saying that the vanishing form of professions and it's time to put them in the red book. Normal enterprises that normally assess the situation have long surrounded themselves with educational institutions, agree with universities and colleges on the training of specialists for themselves. Young people are offered a contract, that is, after graduation, they are guaranteed a job (as before distribution under the Union, only early), just study well, there will be a scholarship and the plant will receive a certified specialist.
      You probably haven’t come in for a long time to amend your home factory. wink
      1. Frunze
        Frunze 24 May 2013 01: 21
        +5
        I’m my native factory of Electronic Computing Machines named after the 5th anniversary of the Komsomol (analogue in Bryansk), my favorite 51 experimental workshop, I still dream about! In 1989 I held in my hands the future of the 90s, Corvette school computers, video players, and etc. the first batch of 10000 pieces was already launched into the series and everything collapsed. In the same 1989, a production delegation came to us from Samsung, they went around the factory with the appearance of celestials, then a meeting with engineers of the design bureau was held in a question-answer format, in two hours, dear Koreans took off their ties, after three hours some of them came to our workshops, and at the end of the meeting they said in two or three years you would become our competitor. But we weren’t given these years to us! And my main thought, we can, we already did this, we can, with Putin, without him, we will restore everything, percent ess is already coming, the new is already breaking its way and we are already awake! Even our site is an example of this hi .
        1. M. Peter
          M. Peter 24 May 2013 05: 16
          0
          Well then, being a competitor to Samsung was not very honorable, it’s their name now, and then the poor-quality Koreans, who were taken because of the lack of money.
          Although yes, it would be very cool, how many opuses I have already read, what would happen if it hadn't fallen apart.
    3. sergeschern
      sergeschern 23 May 2013 19: 17
      +3
      Do you remember how about 5 years ago it was heard from the screen and from the media: "We need middle managers"? And they didn't even stutter about the fact that there was no one to work with their hands. Well, managers seem to be all found, and then what? Heads to give to our "strategists", God forgive me, such idiots!
  • Garrin
    Garrin 23 May 2013 11: 14
    +2
    And I have a question for my colleagues in the forum related to the submarine fleet and nuclear power. After all, there was a project where it was proposed to use submarines that had exhausted their resource, to use them as floating nuclear power plants, what happened to this project, why is it fucked up? After all, make a raft of the same "Sharks", leave one crew, to maintain the boats in working order and train hp, plus e-mail. energy and let them wait for better times and worthy use. After all, it is never too late to put on pins and needles, and to build new ones, oh, how difficult it is.
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 23 May 2013 13: 38
      +2
      like floating nuclear power plants, what happened to this project, why the fuck?

      tutu intervene large price numbers for 1 watt EE generated. Indeed, ALL systems should work on our submarines. To do this, saw PAES. But everything is not so smooth there, for the price is also not cheap.
      1. Garrin
        Garrin 23 May 2013 16: 02
        +1
        Quote: leon-iv
        tutu intervene large numbers of prices per 1 watt EE generated

        I think that all the same, no more than those appointed by Chubys.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. itkul
      itkul 23 May 2013 12: 09
      +5
      Quote: valodavoodoo
      There are no vocational schools. Turners, milling workers learn at the workplace from working mammoths, some details at the plant can be done only by one person whom they pray and no one else.


      But are these turners and milling machines needed on machine tools of the 50s now with a considerable percentage of marriage due to old equipment? Watch here video, beauty

      1. Garrin
        Garrin 23 May 2013 12: 17
        +3
        Quote: itkul
        But are these turners and milling machines needed on the machines of the 50s with a considerable percentage of marriage due to old equipment

        Are needed. Apparently you did not happen to see the work of these virtuosos. Without toolmakers, no centers can work.
        1. itkul
          itkul 23 May 2013 12: 41
          0
          Quote: Garrin
          Apparently you did not happen to see the work of these virtuosos.


          And how long does it take for these virtuosos to make that part in the video above, in my humble opinion, at least two days.
          1. Garrin
            Garrin 23 May 2013 12: 53
            +3
            Quote: itkul
            And how long does it take for these virtuosos to make that part in the video above, in my humble opinion, at least two days.

            Most likely yes, if not more. But you still can't do without turners. The fact is that I had to mount such machining centers and I in no way try to belittle their merits, but sometimes there were questions about equipment and there the "virtuosos" were irreplaceable.
            Yes, actually we are arguing about nothing. I wrote several times about these centers and that they didn’t need vocational schools, but competent engineers, programmers and technicians.
            1. itkul
              itkul 23 May 2013 13: 24
              +1
              Quote: Garrin
              The fact is that I had to mount such machining centers and I do not try to belittle their merits


              Once you are in the topic, you can ask a question. I remember in the 80s they went on an excursion to the shipyards in Murmansk in the school. As far as I remember, CNC machines worked, but in the process the tool was cooled by emulsion. The video above does not cool the tool , hence the question is: did the technology for manufacturing metal cutting tools jump forward in 25 years? On the equipment that you had to mount, was cooling provided?
              1. Garrin
                Garrin 23 May 2013 15: 05
                +2
                Quote: itkul
                Once you are in the topic, you can ask a question. I remember in the 80s they went on an excursion to the shipyards in Murmansk in the school. As far as I remember, CNC machines worked, but in the process the tool was cooled by emulsion. The video above does not cool the tool , hence the question is: did the technology for manufacturing metal cutting tools jump forward in 25 years? On the equipment that you had to mount, was cooling provided?

                At 87m we mounted. Honestly, I don’t remember the details anymore, but I remember, cooling gases let in, freon, CO2 and argon it seems. Plus they dragged the vacuum line, plus complete sealing of the room and a powerful exhaust hood. But liquid cooling was also local, I remember that for sure. More interesting is the story of this montage. But, if desired, this is in PM, I'm afraid that others will not be very interesting.
        2. M. Peter
          M. Peter 23 May 2013 18: 28
          +1
          Quote: Garrin
          Are needed. Apparently you did not happen to see the work of these virtuosos. Without toolmakers, no centers can work.

          At our plant they decided to do without the "virtuosos" and bought a German trumatist, so they replaced a whole workshop of three hundred metal structures, the workers were assigned to the assembly shop. So the quality of the parts produced by this one machine exceeded the quality of three hundred "virtuosos". By the way, the speed of production has increased significantly, everything is done in one place, there is no need to drag along the shop from one "virtuoso" to another. wink
  • Garrin
    Garrin 23 May 2013 11: 14
    +1
    And I have a question for my colleagues in the forum related to the submarine fleet and nuclear power. After all, there was a project where it was proposed to use submarines that had exhausted their resource, to use them as floating nuclear power plants, what happened to this project, why is it fucked up? After all, make a raft of the same "Sharks", leave one crew, to maintain the boats in working order and train hp, plus e-mail. energy and let them wait for better times and worthy use. After all, it is never too late to put on pins and needles, and to build new ones, oh, how difficult it is.
    1. Marine One
      Marine One 23 May 2013 12: 34
      +1
      Quote: Garrin
      After all, there was a project where it was proposed to use submarines that had exhausted their resources, to use them as floating nuclear power plants, what became of this project,


      A distant relative had a relationship with this, he worked on the idea in the early 90s at the Kurchatov Institute. In general, a finished document on this subject was made, including calculations in the scope of the technical and financial model. Then the project was put in a drawer. There was no money in the country, and there is not enough production capacity for such alterations even now. In the picture is a diagram of the integration of a nuclear submarine reactor into a floating power station.
      1. Garrin
        Garrin 23 May 2013 12: 56
        0
        Quote: Marine One

        A distant relative related to this, worked out the idea in the early 90s at the Kurchatov Institute

        Thanks! (the picture "caught up" below)
  • vkusniikorj
    vkusniikorj 23 May 2013 11: 16
    +4
    Oops! Yesterday and the day before everyone shouted fellow we’ll tear the fleet, we don’t escape anyone! But it turns out that Peter will remain in the north, in the south of Moscow, the flagship destroyer in the Baltic, what else? what Vaashu Maman !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • USNik
    USNik 23 May 2013 11: 30
    +1
    A final decision has not yet been made about the disposal, there are projects to convert Sharks into tankers, drilling rigs and container ships. But IMHO, the delivery price is prohibitive, cheaper by plane. But you can’t leave everything as it is now, nobody needs another accident at the bottom.
    1. Argon
      Argon 23 May 2013 23: 13
      +1
      Yes, this is how to count, if the commercial risk for the aircraft, how many are falling. And how many in the history of nuclear-powered ships drowned? There was a project for the transportation of liquefied gas, modified "sharks" directly from the fields to China. Economically sound. We refused a large degree of technical risk, low payback.
  • shamil
    shamil 23 May 2013 11: 35
    +2
    the wrong country was called Honduras !!!!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • smershspy
    smershspy 23 May 2013 11: 58
    +6
    Lord! It is necessary to create new submarines and upgrade the old ones, thereby increasing the power of the submarine fleet! Many units would be happy to have a pair of submarines for special operations! I hope that they will soon take up the mind! Glory to the Navy, PF of the Russian Federation! I have the honor!
  • NickitaDembelnulsa
    NickitaDembelnulsa 23 May 2013 12: 05
    0
    And Shoigu aware of these charges?
  • Marine One
    Marine One 23 May 2013 12: 35
    +2
    The picture fell off.
  • seed
    seed 23 May 2013 12: 43
    +2
    Quote: saturn.mmm
    Quote: seed
    I will support you.

    B-52 last made in 1962 - flies. Minuteman in 1978- flies. All 16 Ohio are in the ranks, and they are also 20-30 years old, and undergo modernization, they are stupid they are probably even weird like the fact that they have world domination.
    Quote: seed
    and the characteristics of Boreev are much higher ...

    Not a single boat is currently capable of performing combat duty, and more than 16 years have passed since the first one was laid.
    Quote: seed
    Moreover, they are already 20-30 years old.


    Dear Saturn.mmm. Ohio is in service as it undergoes scheduled repairs. I know not by hearsay how the repairs of the ships of the Northern Fleet are carried out in the basing areas. Basically, work starts when something breaks, if there is money, of course. Fortunately, this does not apply to BDRMs. They are driven to Zvezdochka for medium repairs according to plan. But the multi-purpose 971 pr. At the beginning of the year were all for various reasons. And they just provide the exit of the "strategists". That is, I want to say that there is not enough money and the capacity of repair enterprises for scheduled repairs of combat-ready ships. And you mean the refurbishment and modernization of "Sharks".
    I believe that there will be both money and power in the future. But then it will be necessary to modernize "Boreas" and "Ash".
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 23 May 2013 16: 52
      +3
      Quote: seed
      I believe that there will be both money and power in the future. But then it will be necessary to modernize "Boreas" and "Ash".

      Dear Semyonich, God forbid that in the future there would be "Ash" and "Borei" and that they would undergo scheduled repairs and modernization.
      It is a pity that Russia is currently unable to repair and modernize the Sharks, and Sharks, which could serve the country for another 20 years, will be cut.
  • Zheka Varangian
    Zheka Varangian 23 May 2013 12: 48
    +1
    From the TV screen they cheerfully broadcast about the priority tasks in strengthening the Russian Navy. am The news is like a knife to the heart !!! Do we have dofig submarines? Especially SUCH? Just let it be cut and broken, and is it not fate to modernize or re-equip? TRAITORS !!!
  • nod739
    nod739 23 May 2013 12: 58
    +1
    Quote: seed
    Quote: ABV
    Mania - just to repair it and let it float (it floats) as it can --- tired of it already. RESTORE a rusted shark - this is not a pan to clear of scale !!! and modernization ??? for it, ALL systems need to be redesigned and set up for release! the release of MULTIPLE nodes, additional R&D ... and the operation is too expensive .... the construction of a new Borea is really cheaper than restoring the Shark ... and the characteristics of Boreev are much higher ...
    I’m in a hurry to work, I would write more ...

    I will support you. Better two (well, let one) new than modernized old. Moreover, they are already 20-30 years old. The case is also not eternal. How much should they serve after modernization? 10-15 years old?


    and a new one also needs to be modernized, too, hurt in them laid both for the long term and for modernization,
    I will never believe that modernization costs more than a new one, how much metal is needed per building,
  • jayich
    jayich 23 May 2013 13: 04
    +5
    Now it became interesting to me that the carrier of Losharik has developed its resource, why not remake the shark under the carrier, because it is huge, scientific or special. You can install a lot of equipment, with the docking of technical problems, there will be no hard cases to cut, you do not need to cut a lot of space (the more space the easier it is to place the necessary equipment). And the second boat to the museum in Novorosiysk or St. Petersburg. When I served in St. Petersburg, I had an unforgettable experience on pl. D-2. And you can wander around the shark all day, but on some tourists you can take a lot of money from each foreigner for 30-40 euros for the entrance, for schoolchildren students for free Russian and citizens of the CIS 200-300 rubles for the entrance. It would be the best museum of the Russian Navy, because it is also our pride as "Aurora".
  • rudolff
    rudolff 23 May 2013 13: 15
    +8
    Interestingly, what smart guy suddenly quickly calculated and equated the repair and modernization of one Shark to two Boreas? Were there any commissions appointed or troubleshooting? Have any modernization plans been approved? What would be more expedient in general, the restoration of the production of a standard missile system, the completion of the Bark test cycle, re-equipment for the new Bulava or for the Makeevskaya Sineva, or maybe the re-profiling of the cruiser for the carrier of cruise missiles? Has anyone seriously thought about this at all? They have been standing at the wall for more than ten years and during this time any work could have been carried out, including R&D, and even not in a very hurry! Why does everything that we have "old and unnecessary" at the same Chinese, Indians become the basis of the fleet ?! We still have a groundwork for Shchuke-B on Amurskoye, but we do not even think of completing it, trying once again to shove the Indians off. How long have we all been approving the project of the destroyer, but they cannot approve! There have been so many talks about the restoration and modernization of the Eagles, but things are still there and it looks like they will start cutting up after the Sharks! How much ado about these Mistrals, but at least some design bureau is engaged in the topic of DC, BDK, UDC? Apart from this unfortunate Ivan Gren, nothing is visible in the future. Sad!
    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic 23 May 2013 16: 59
      +5
      Quote: rudolff
      What would be more appropriate if the restoration of production of the full-time missile system, the completion of the Bark test cycle, the conversion to a new Mace or Makeevskaya Sineva, or maybe the conversion of the cruiser to the carrier of cruise missiles? Has anyone ever seriously thought about this? They have been standing against the wall for more than ten years, and during this time any work could be carried out, including R&D, and not even in a hurry!


      Solomonov, Urinson and Sergeyev at that time convinced the then leadership of the country to go along the path of creating the Bulava and Boreev. I already described this background in more detail and what guided them, the arguments of the opponents in the person of the Efremov team and KB Makeev also ... When Yuzhmash and the Ukrainian sector broke away Makeev had already passed away by then, Efremov and Solomonov remained. After the death of Nodiradze, Solomonov, who headed the MIIT, turned out to be more influential in power circles with his ideas and vision of prospects thanks to his friendship with Urinson Sergeyev and Yasin, and as the leader of more than four thousand employees, he sought to provide himself with long-term orders in order to preserve his specialists. Most experts suggested that Efremov and NPO Mash take everything into their own hands and become the main one on the missile topic, but he refused for a number of reasons, therefore at that time emphasis was placed on the Solomon TT missiles - Bulava, Poplar, Yars. And only now they gradually began to correct the bias by reanimating some projects, in particular, Vanguard and Liner.
  • Mhpv
    Mhpv 23 May 2013 13: 18
    +1
    What we have - we do not store, having lost - we cry!
  • MrFYGY
    MrFYGY 23 May 2013 13: 22
    +1
    It’s better to recycle some people. Much more efficient and cost effective.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 23 May 2013 13: 32
    +4
    And nobody will convert them into a museum. Again equate in value to the Boreas. This is the Americans extra money, battleships with aircraft carriers put on eternal parking! For some reason they are proud of their achievements. Well, with us it’s just relics of the Cold War, anachronisms! To scrap them! Save the denyuzhki! Better give Chubais under nano-bulbs!
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 23 May 2013 13: 44
      +1
      And nobody will convert them into a museum.

      And where to open a museum in Gadzhiev chtol)))
  • ovgorskiy
    ovgorskiy 23 May 2013 13: 49
    +2
    The boat, of course, is grandiose, and it could serve for a long time. Only the results of the collapse of the Union will be responding to us for a very long time. The lack of rockets for her makes this masterpiece an expensive pile of expensive metal. For the information of the "all-proprietors", the strategic missile system is a submarine plus the missile itself and control systems for both. There are NO missiles for this submarine, and the plans are not foreseen. The development of the rocket will take a lot of time and cost a lot of money, while the development of the boat will become completely obsolete. Regarding the conversion of the submarine into something else, it is also a huge question, since the boat is crammed with military equipment and everything must be removed, up to the removal of the hull, and only then transferred to the customer, all this is insanely expensive. These same "all-proprietors" shout that education is not developing, but they forget that education needs money, which was spent on the useless modernization of this complex. If you are to invest money, then it is in modern and necessary for defense devices, and not wasted.
  • Strannik_GO
    Strannik_GO 23 May 2013 13: 59
    +3
    If you want peace, get ready for war !!!
    The world is preparing for a big redistribution, or do you think that in case of dismemberment and seizure of the territory of the country - will they treat us with sweets? And the allegations that the world is overpopulated and that it is necessary to reduce the number of people are empty horror stories for underdeveloped countries that do not fall into the “golden billion”.
    War will be, to extermination! The war, wakes up with the use of automated technology with a little involvement of regular military personnel. Understand that a “violinist” is not needed, someone will not wake us up, multimillion-strong armies will not come to this territory, there will be no guerrilla war, and there will be no 300-year-old yoke.
    To create super-powerful, thermo-hydrogen, guided landmines on the basis of AKUL. To place, or bring out a certain moment, to the key points of the planet - and if anything, bring it into action, which would be too small, no one would seem.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 23 May 2013 14: 05
    +6
    The simplest, most affordable, and possibly even cost-effective option for using the ships of this project is re-equipment for a launch pad for launching satellites into orbit. Technologies are developing, spacecraft are becoming more compact, and the demand for light rockets is growing. For such purposes, we also use not young 667 BDRMs for such purposes. But in view of the fact that their mines are designed for rather compact R-29RMU / RMU2 / RMU2.1, and those used for launching the Shtil-2 satellites have significant fairing dimensions, the boats go out to the launch area in the surface position and with an open shaft cover, from where the head of the rocket sticks out. Akula has the largest mines in the world among mobile ones, which is a big plus. Conversion to conversion rockets will not be too expensive. First, you only need two to four launchers. Secondly, there is no need to modernize the systems associated with the combat use of the cruiser. Much can generally be dismantled. The benefits are clear. The growing demand for light-class missiles, the ability to launch directly from the equator, "comfortable" delivery of products to launch areas underwater, etc.
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 23 May 2013 14: 09
      +1
      The question is where to get these missiles? I'm not very sure that the Southern Design Bureau is able.
      And so the idea is good.