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/
264 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    23 May 2013 07: 35
    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
      +9
      23 May 2013 08: 41
      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
        +36
        23 May 2013 10: 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. +18
          23 May 2013 11: 07
          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. +5
            23 May 2013 11: 21
            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. +1
              23 May 2013 11: 28
              Read the posted above.
              1. PLO
                +12
                23 May 2013 13: 29
                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
                  +5
                  23 May 2013 16: 56
                  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. +3
                    23 May 2013 18: 44
                    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
                      0
                      23 May 2013 23: 17
                      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. +2
                        24 May 2013 06: 02
                        "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. +1
                  23 May 2013 18: 50
                  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. +3
                    23 May 2013 21: 25
                    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. 0
                      23 May 2013 22: 08
                      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
                        0
                        23 May 2013 23: 43
                        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. +1
                        24 May 2013 06: 22
                        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. 0
                      24 May 2013 06: 16
                      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.
                3. Kommunisten
                  0
                  1 June 2013 01: 28
                  Sineva / Liner, no, not heard?
            2. 0
              23 May 2013 20: 47
              if there are no rockets for them ... then how did it happen ?!
              1. Ataman
                0
                23 May 2013 23: 48
                it is written in the sixth paragraph of the article wink
        2. rolik
          +7
          23 May 2013 17: 50
          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. +2
          23 May 2013 18: 19
          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. +4
            23 May 2013 18: 53
            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
              0
              23 May 2013 22: 07
              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. 0
                24 May 2013 06: 37
                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
          +3
          23 May 2013 20: 16
          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. +2
            23 May 2013 22: 09
            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
              0
              27 May 2013 08: 08
              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
            0
            23 May 2013 23: 39
            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. +1
            24 May 2013 10: 17
            Quote: Edward
            A strategist can work without leaving the pier.

            why then submarines? let the missiles stand in ground-based mines))
        5. +3
          23 May 2013 20: 24
          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
        -3
        23 May 2013 17: 58
        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. +3
          23 May 2013 22: 17
          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
        -2
        23 May 2013 22: 10
        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
          0
          24 May 2013 10: 40
          you are not so angry as a hysterical choleric.
          Mushrooms probably licked in the morning
          1. evil hamster
            0
            26 May 2013 13: 37
            And that is, evidence of your delirium will not follow, as expected.
      4. Kommunisten
        0
        1 June 2013 01: 37
        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. +1
      23 May 2013 08: 44
      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. +2
      23 May 2013 09: 40
      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. +2
        23 May 2013 12: 48
        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
          +7
          23 May 2013 17: 01
          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
            +4
            23 May 2013 20: 36
            Glad you said!
            Relieved from the soul ... it seemed that only idiots were alive!
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. NUT
          NUT
          +13
          23 May 2013 17: 25
          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. 0
            23 May 2013 22: 45
            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. +3
            24 May 2013 21: 27
            And it used to be
            1. Barracuda148
              +1
              25 May 2013 15: 48
              I saw it too
    4. orkibotu
      0
      23 May 2013 09: 51
      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. +14
        23 May 2013 10: 30
        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
        +16
        23 May 2013 10: 44
        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
      +7
      23 May 2013 09: 59
      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. +7
        23 May 2013 11: 32
        Then, in the underwater casino - it will pay off faster
      2. Edward
        +4
        23 May 2013 21: 03
        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. +2
          24 May 2013 14: 04
          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. +2
      23 May 2013 10: 46
      I see - the "pro-American" has revived and began to actively minus.
      1. 755962
        +8
        23 May 2013 11: 10
        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
          +3
          23 May 2013 13: 32
          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
      0
      23 May 2013 12: 11
      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
        +7
        23 May 2013 12: 39
        Of course, it’s better to buy any line, contain stools, rosnans, etc.
      2. Edward
        +3
        23 May 2013 21: 12
        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
          +1
          24 May 2013 00: 51
          in the current reality, unfortunately, they don’t contain an army, and all sorts of stools and others earn on it
      3. +1
        24 May 2013 14: 11
        > (1,5-2 times more expensive than submarines of a similar purpose).

        so they are more than twice as large in displacement
    8. +2
      23 May 2013 13: 27
      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
      +1
      23 May 2013 15: 54
      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 military 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
      0
      23 May 2013 21: 36
      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.
  2. +9
    23 May 2013 07: 35
    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
      +14
      23 May 2013 07: 44
      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. +6
        23 May 2013 08: 21
        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. +4
        23 May 2013 12: 59
        Under EBEN they didn’t build new right now they are building new strategists. And in July the 5th lay 955.
        1. +3
          23 May 2013 15: 52
          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
            0
            23 May 2013 22: 17
            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. +1
        23 May 2013 15: 20
        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
          +5
          23 May 2013 17: 56
          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. +1
            24 May 2013 11: 06
            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
              0
              24 May 2013 16: 36
              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. +1
                24 May 2013 17: 26
                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
          +3
          23 May 2013 21: 40
          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. 0
            24 May 2013 11: 14
            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
              +1
              24 May 2013 14: 45
              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. +2
                24 May 2013 15: 53
                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-knife
                1. rolik
                  +3
                  24 May 2013 16: 33
                  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
                  +1
                  25 May 2013 16: 26
                  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
                0
                25 May 2013 22: 13
                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!
  3. knyazDmitriy
    0
    23 May 2013 07: 45
    good afternoon

    if I’m wrong, correct, as far as I know, that P 39 is a liquid fuel rocket, not solid
  4. +7
    23 May 2013 07: 47
    You are wrong - P39 solid fuel
  5. pinecone
    +7
    23 May 2013 07: 52
    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.
  6. +11
    23 May 2013 08: 03
    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. +4
      23 May 2013 08: 27
      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. +4
      23 May 2013 08: 39
      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. +3
        23 May 2013 08: 45
        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. -1
        24 May 2013 21: 30
        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.
  7. +13
    23 May 2013 08: 04
    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. +5
      23 May 2013 08: 37
      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."
  8. ABV
    +12
    23 May 2013 08: 06
    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. +6
      23 May 2013 08: 27
      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. +6
        23 May 2013 13: 26
        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. +2
          23 May 2013 14: 04
          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. +6
            23 May 2013 14: 06
            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. +4
              23 May 2013 14: 11
              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. +4
                23 May 2013 14: 22
                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. +2
                  23 May 2013 14: 31
                  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. +5
                    23 May 2013 14: 52
                    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. 0
                      23 May 2013 15: 02
                      Okay, the Voivode knows better, I hope they know what they are doing.
                      Thanks for the conversation.
                    2. +1
                      23 May 2013 19: 03
                      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. +2
          23 May 2013 16: 12
          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
            0
            23 May 2013 22: 29
            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
              +2
              23 May 2013 23: 10
              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
                0
                24 May 2013 01: 01
                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
                  0
                  24 May 2013 09: 43
                  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. +16
      23 May 2013 08: 31
      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
      +1
      23 May 2013 08: 49
      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
        +5
        23 May 2013 09: 13
        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. 0
        23 May 2013 19: 10
        Yes, you're right.
        The name Borea, of course, was awarded in honor of Borka the drunk ... by the ancient Greeks wink
    4. +2
      23 May 2013 10: 37
      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
      +3
      23 May 2013 23: 06
      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
  9. +15
    23 May 2013 08: 06
    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
      -1
      23 May 2013 08: 26
      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
        +9
        23 May 2013 10: 51
        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
          -3
          23 May 2013 12: 34
          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
            +2
            23 May 2013 12: 56
            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
        +1
        23 May 2013 11: 40
        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. 0
      23 May 2013 19: 50
      your golden words!
  10. +10
    23 May 2013 08: 13
    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. +4
      23 May 2013 08: 27
      From! And I'm talking about too !!!!
    2. 0
      23 May 2013 08: 31
      Using nuclear submarines and nuclear weapons ???
    3. +2
      23 May 2013 08: 34
      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.
  11. Dimkapvo
    +9
    23 May 2013 08: 29
    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
      +7
      23 May 2013 09: 22
      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. +3
      23 May 2013 19: 58
      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!
  12. igor-75
    -10
    23 May 2013 08: 38
    And why, if you don't need it, not sell it to the same Chinese or Japanese? "Varyag" sold?
    1. +6
      23 May 2013 09: 16
      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. +2
        23 May 2013 10: 17
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        These two boats can destroy the continent.

        To do this, it remains to find rockets for them
        1. +2
          23 May 2013 11: 32
          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. +3
          23 May 2013 12: 08
          Missiles should not be sought and done
          1. +1
            23 May 2013 12: 25
            Quote: mark1
            Missiles should not be sought and done

            if still not done, then probably not from reluctance
            1. ozs
              ozs
              +2
              23 May 2013 12: 59
              just from him.
              Bark ruined almost finished rocket and got a hard-flying mace.
              1. +3
                23 May 2013 13: 33
                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. +1
              23 May 2013 13: 16
              [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
          -1
          23 May 2013 18: 13
          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
        +1
        23 May 2013 18: 11
        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. +1
          23 May 2013 22: 16
          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
            0
            24 May 2013 19: 29
            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
      +2
      23 May 2013 11: 27
      then they will make needles out of them and throw them at us
  13. 0
    23 May 2013 08: 39
    Um. Another weird article. Very ambiguous in meaning.
  14. +3
    23 May 2013 09: 05
    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. +1
      23 May 2013 14: 47
      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. +4
        23 May 2013 16: 04
        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. -1
          23 May 2013 16: 34
          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. -2
          23 May 2013 20: 33
          Vasilich! Do not disgrace the all-prosralist, and change the avatar of Verkhoany GKO to Nemtsov. am laughing
          1. ozs
            ozs
            +1
            24 May 2013 01: 05
            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. +1
        23 May 2013 20: 42
        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
  15. shamil
    -15
    23 May 2013 09: 07
    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. +3
      23 May 2013 14: 51
      scat ... unclean
  16. +8
    23 May 2013 09: 13
    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
      +5
      23 May 2013 10: 31
      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
      0
      23 May 2013 10: 51
      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. +2
        23 May 2013 13: 37
        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.
  17. shamil
    +2
    23 May 2013 09: 15
    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
  18. +2
    23 May 2013 09: 28
    There will be no "Sharks", what will the "stickers" do?
    what
  19. igor-75
    +11
    23 May 2013 09: 37
    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. +1
      23 May 2013 15: 03
      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. +2
      23 May 2013 23: 20
      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.
  20. Ivan Mechanic
    +6
    23 May 2013 09: 46
    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
      +2
      23 May 2013 12: 21
      Dear locomotive succeed. Yes, and our concept is defense, and not quiet, like .indos
    2. evil hamster
      -1
      23 May 2013 22: 38
      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
        +1
        23 May 2013 22: 56
        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
          -1
          24 May 2013 01: 12
          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
            +1
            24 May 2013 09: 53
            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
  21. +11
    23 May 2013 09: 47
    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?
  22. +12
    23 May 2013 09: 56
    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 !!!
  23. seed
    +1
    23 May 2013 10: 00
    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. +5
      23 May 2013 10: 40
      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
      +4
      23 May 2013 10: 56
      only boreans make less than boats write off
  24. seed
    +2
    23 May 2013 10: 05
    And I hope that TK-208 will be preserved in the future as a museum.
  25. +3
    23 May 2013 10: 20
    "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.
  26. +13
    23 May 2013 10: 22
    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. +13
      23 May 2013 10: 22
      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
      +3
      23 May 2013 11: 27
      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. 0
        23 May 2013 11: 44
        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. +1
        23 May 2013 19: 34
        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
  27. +2
    23 May 2013 10: 22
    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
      +3
      23 May 2013 10: 36
      Quote: tchack
      Why not do it normal: two were built - one was decommissioned.


      Better 10 to one. 10 build - write off one
  28. +1
    23 May 2013 10: 36
    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 !!!
  29. +16
    23 May 2013 11: 14
    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. +5
      23 May 2013 11: 20
      Gold words. Only now the current government is not interested in all this, they have another order.
    2. M. Peter
      +3
      23 May 2013 18: 24
      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
        +5
        24 May 2013 01: 21
        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
          0
          24 May 2013 05: 16
          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. +3
      23 May 2013 19: 17
      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!
  30. +2
    23 May 2013 11: 14
    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. +2
      23 May 2013 13: 38
      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. +1
        23 May 2013 16: 02
        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.
  31. The comment was deleted.
    1. itkul
      +5
      23 May 2013 12: 09
      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. +3
        23 May 2013 12: 17
        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
          0
          23 May 2013 12: 41
          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. +3
            23 May 2013 12: 53
            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
              +1
              23 May 2013 13: 24
              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. +2
                23 May 2013 15: 05
                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
          +1
          23 May 2013 18: 28
          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
  32. +1
    23 May 2013 11: 14
    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
      +1
      23 May 2013 12: 34
      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. 0
        23 May 2013 12: 56
        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)
  33. vkusniikorj
    +4
    23 May 2013 11: 16
    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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  34. USNik
    +1
    23 May 2013 11: 30
    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. +1
      23 May 2013 23: 13
      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.
  35. shamil
    +2
    23 May 2013 11: 35
    the wrong country was called Honduras !!!!
  36. The comment was deleted.
  37. smershspy
    +6
    23 May 2013 11: 58
    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!
  38. NickitaDembelnulsa
    0
    23 May 2013 12: 05
    And Shoigu aware of these charges?
  39. Marine One
    +2
    23 May 2013 12: 35
    The picture fell off.
  40. seed
    +2
    23 May 2013 12: 43
    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. +3
      23 May 2013 16: 52
      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.
  41. Zheka Varangian
    +1
    23 May 2013 12: 48
    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 !!!
  42. +1
    23 May 2013 12: 58
    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,
  43. +5
    23 May 2013 13: 04
    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".
  44. The comment was deleted.
    1. +5
      23 May 2013 16: 59
      Quote from rudolf
      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.
  45. +1
    23 May 2013 13: 18
    What we have - we do not store, having lost - we cry!
  46. +1
    23 May 2013 13: 22
    It’s better to recycle some people. Much more efficient and cost effective.
  47. The comment was deleted.
    1. +1
      23 May 2013 13: 44
      And nobody will convert them into a museum.

      And where to open a museum in Gadzhiev chtol)))
  48. +2
    23 May 2013 13: 49
    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.
  49. +3
    23 May 2013 13: 59
    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.
  50. The comment was deleted.
    1. +1
      23 May 2013 14: 09
      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.
  51. +1
    23 May 2013 14: 24
    It would be nice to hear the opinion of a submariner on this topic, even better, who served on this project, or even better, an officer.
    1. +1
      23 May 2013 14: 50
      and what would clarify the opinion of the submariner who served on this project? Will he find missiles for these boats somewhere? every sandpiper praises his swamp and of course those who served on this boat will not criticize her, but these are rather emotions
  52. +7
    23 May 2013 15: 21
    There is no point in upgrading sharks. I’ll tell you more that when the issue of building new strategists 955 was being decided, your Americans themselves were ready to give money so that we could repair the sharks and not build a new strategist)) and do you know why? because American specialists at the time of the drunkard had access to the shark’s secret documents, and having studied the docks, they already calmly knew all the disadvantages of this boat, and how to find it in the open ocean. and those people who say that it’s pressure. complete nonsense!!!
    as they have already written here before, this is a unique submarine, and this is its big problem, in terms of characteristics it is significantly inferior to the 955. sharks are very expensive to operate and I’m generally silent about modernization, we have an acute shortage of shipbuilding enterprises, and you propose to modernize the boats, and where will you modernize them, dear ones???? there is a plan for the construction of new strategists, there will be not 8 but 10 of them, and this is only until 20 (at least it is planned) according to the information I have, the 955 project will include about 20 submarines, and will become the basis of our nuclear forces. you need to understand that if 941 had not 3, but at least 5 or 6, then modernization would have been possible and cost-effective. We already have a large zoo, so I think the decision to decommission Project 941 boats is correct.... talk about future plans, the next boats of which are planned to be decommissioned will be Antei... but not all.
  53. Parabellum
    -1
    23 May 2013 15: 23
    You shouldn't live yesterday, you should live today. Unfortunately, the Russian Federation is no longer the USSR and we cannot afford to maintain such leviathans. Yes, and Boreas are being built. But it’s still a pity, purely from the point of view of the engineering genius of Soviet designers.
  54. +2
    23 May 2013 15: 25
    Why are you so obsessed with rockets? When a person’s teeth deteriorate, he either treats them, or puts on crowns, or inserts implants, the same goes for the boat. I don’t think that the Sharks were created with little potential for modernization. Having a catamaran hull made of titanium alloys will rust It’s far from coming soon, and the replacement of missiles, as someone already said here, was intended constructively. The submariner’s opinion would help to understand the effectiveness of modernization or, indeed, for scrap.
    The government's used car recycling program has reached the Army and Navy.
    1. +1
      23 May 2013 15: 34
      no one says that sharks have no modernization potential!! but even a modernized shark will be worse than the 955 project. such studies have been carried out
      2nd point where will you upgrade the sharks? we need slipways that don’t already exist, that is, in your opinion, the state should cancel the laying of new bores and begin modernizing the sharks!!! ?
      1. 0
        23 May 2013 16: 39
        Regarding the fact that the amers know everything, I completely agree with you, so maybe there is no point in maintaining the docks in the same dock and they will cut them at Zvezdochka.
        media=/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI-3zMee0s4&feature=player_embedded]That’s how “National Geographic is a unique popular science geographical magazine, the official publication of the National Geographic Society (USA)” was happy, not without the help of NTV destruction of the Typhoon.
      2. 0
        24 May 2013 14: 34
        let them modernize them in China - and learn how to build boats themselves, and preserve the “sharks”. And you can demand free repairs for this underwater shipbuilding master class
    2. -1
      23 May 2013 16: 00
      Quote: mhpv
      The submariner’s opinion would help to understand the effectiveness of modernization or whether it really is scrapped.

      Do you understand the difference between a specialist who operates equipment and a specialist who creates this equipment? What is needed here is no less than a deputy chief designer. What does a catamaran hull provide, besides duplication of systems and reserve buoyancy (note - not strength, but buoyancy)
  55. +2
    23 May 2013 15: 36
    And in general, let the deputies invite the military, submarine designers and hold hearings like on the Mig-31, at least the people will hear more adequate solutions to this problem than from these yellow media.
    1. -1
      23 May 2013 15: 39
      I wrote to you that the research was carried out...
  56. The comment was deleted.
  57. +3
    23 May 2013 15: 56
    be that as it may, the sharks are very, very sorry for the unique submarine cruiser, no wonder the Americans were really most afraid of this class of boats; the rest of the boats didn’t pay much attention, but they grabbed the sharks with their teeth in a death grip, apparently they still don’t give them peace even with the torn ones out by hook or by crook they continue to sink this project, apparently there were really very good boats, but they betrayed those who destroyed the project are alive and well. And I don’t believe that it is impossible to find a use for these remaining two stains; there are so many of them that you can’t even list them. YOU CAN’T CUT THEM AND THAT’S ALL HERE! If, God forbid, they were sold to the Chinese, they would definitely never have thought of cutting them down in a month and they would float like little ones, but I hope things won’t turn into such madness even with our corrupt skins!
  58. The comment was deleted.
    1. +1
      23 May 2013 23: 26
      A very, very correct comment - not in the eyebrow, but in the eye.
  59. -1
    23 May 2013 16: 16
    when the issue of Admiral Gorshkov was being decided, the situation was different, then they didn’t even know whether the state would exist... so there’s no need to distort,
    1. donchepano
      0
      24 May 2013 09: 41
      Quote: indiggo
      when the issue of Admiral Gorshkov was being decided, the situation was different, then they didn’t even know whether the state would exist... so there’s no need to distort,


      Hmm, So it was you “indigo child” who decided the issue of Gorshkov and the end of the existence of our state, since you speak so confidently about it? Is your last name Shakhrai by any chance?
  60. The comment was deleted.
  61. Drappier
    +4
    23 May 2013 16: 34
    Ohio-class submarines were torn off from Wikipedia so as not to further philosophize: Repairs and modernizations [edit]


    USS Ohio is preparing for repairs and modernization.


    In this photo, work is in full swing.
    Initially, Ohio-class SSBNs were designed for a 30-year service life with one reactor recharge. This period included:
    first 14 years of service;
    2 years ERO (Engineering Refueling Overhaul) - major overhaul with reactor recharge;
    second 14 years of service.
    Since 1995, a service life extension program has been launched. Thanks to it, since 1998, the service life has increased to 42-44 years. The essence of the program was that during the first and second service life, instead of one of the inter-trip repairs, a 4-month ERP (Extended Refit Period) repair was added, during which preventive maintenance was carried out and nuclear fuel was not replaced. Due to the fact that the actual operation of the boats was not as intensive as expected, the time before recharging the reactor was increased to 20 years. As of 2009, the life cycle of boats is as follows[31]:
    14 years of service;
    4 month ERP;
    6 years of service;
    2-year ERO;
    6-month test cycle;
    20-year service life, with a 4-month ERP (interim repair period is not defined and is apparently determined based on the results of inter-trip inspections).
    The result of the START 1 and START 2 treaties on the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons[32] was the 1994 nuclear force development program prepared by the Bill Clinton administration (eng. 1994 Nuclear Posture Review). According to this program, the number of Ohio-class missile carriers was reduced to 14. Of the first eight missile carriers equipped with Trident I C-4 missiles, four were to be converted into carriers of Tomahawk cruise missiles, and the remaining were converted into carriers of Trident II D5 missiles. A similar program of the George W. Bush administration, 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, consolidated this position, and, in connection with the changed international situation and the growing threats from North Korea and China, of the remaining 14 missile carriers, 7 should be located in the Pacific Ocean, 5 in the Atlantic, and two more boats is undergoing a planned overhaul[33].
    The first four boats from Trident 1 were converted to SSGNs during 2002–2008 during major overhaul (ERO). On September 26, 2002, the US Navy awarded a $442,9 million contract to Electric Boat to perform the first phase of work to convert the SSBN 726 into a SSGN[34]. An additional $2002 million was allocated for the program in 355. $2003 million was allocated in FY 825, $2004 million in 936, $505 million in 2005, and $170 million in FY 2006. As a result, the average cost of converting one boat into an SSGN was about $800 million.
    And you keep telling us about metal fatigue, it’s not profitable, it’s cheaper. This is terrible news.....
    1. +1
      23 May 2013 16: 41
      You just didn’t take into account that new boats are being built in the USA. Who's against it if you can find money for both?
      1. Drappier
        +5
        23 May 2013 16: 46
        Well, yes, the USA prints this money and sells it to us for resources. Support the US economy, sell oil and gas for paper.
  62. +6
    23 May 2013 16: 50
    It would be advisable to modernize the Sharks according to one of two options:
    1) in the military - re-equipment for missile carriers, preferably anti-ship missiles, for the purpose of patrolling in the near sea zone in readiness to launch a massive strike on NK AUG, carriers of SLCMs and missile defense ships with the Aegis system (subject to the restoration of effective anti-aircraft defense in the near sea zone);
    2) in civilian use - use as a floating platform for launching light-class space rockets.
    1. 0
      24 May 2013 14: 38
      yes, I also suggested the same thing above, but these ships may become part of the AUG in the future
  63. 0
    23 May 2013 16: 52
    the state turned its face to the army only after August 2008, before that the Russian Armed Forces were unnecessary to anyone, only now the army and navy received the necessary attention and development. you're telling me about
    Admiral Gorshkov, I’ll tell you more: in 2011, at a closed meeting in the Kremlin, the issue of adopting the actually ready-made Admiral Gorshkov was considered, and India would be returned and paid an additional amount for moral damage... what prevented this from happening was that there was too much equipment that was Indian and political moments.. believe it or not, but the opportunity was considered. and regarding sharks, a deliberate decision was made... and the study was carried out several times,1 under Serdyukov
    and 2 already under Shaigu...
  64. +6
    23 May 2013 17: 12
    “The boss thinks for a long time, but decides wisely!” - this phrase from Kirnosov’s book “Before the Watch” is probably familiar to every midshipman.
    Many copies have been broken in the debate about the future fate of TK-17 and 20. Economic feasibility won. And here, in my opinion, is why.
    1. The shark, having embarked on modernization, will occupy a boathouse in which you can build Borey.
    2. Modernization must be “deep”, otherwise it loses its meaning. This means: all electronics, hydraulic system, mechanics need to be changed. Probably the active zone too. This is a carriage of design and technological documentation. Electronic drawings are good for CNC machines, but for Uncle Vasya, give me a pattern!
    3. It is probably no longer practical to use it as a carrier of SLBMs: there are no R-39 missiles, their warranty period has expired. But a solid propellant is not an encapsulated liquid ICBM: the slightest crack in the powder bomb leads to detonation. Converting to a SLCM carrier is expensive.
    4. In terms of cost, upgrading 1 Shark is equivalent to building 2 Boreans. And in terms of combat effectiveness, 1st TK is inferior to 2nd RPKSN (20:32 for ICBMs), in terms of salvo separation, in terms of the number of targets hit, etc. To search for Boreev, PLB forces are needed 2 times more.
    5. In terms of noise level (perhaps the main tactical, not fire! indicator of a submarine), Borey wins.
    By reducing the noise of the boat by only 10 dB, the noise level of the submarine is reduced by 3 times. Starting from 40 dB this is already natural sea noise. Without a g/a portrait (recording of discrete components), such a submarine cannot be found at sea in the passive search mode. There is no portrait of the new Borey, but I can’t say the same about TK.
    6. The Boreans have entered the stream, and the technological equipment of the Sharks has been lost, it needs to be created anew. Again, piece parts are more expensive than their mass production.
    7. The 100t crane with a millimeter hook stroke, used to load the R-39, is the Achilles heel of the Sharks. No crane – no combat readiness.
    BUT! There is a way out. It is necessary to carry out conservation and postpone the modernization of the TC until better times. The boat is truly unique. In terms of buoyancy reserve, survivability and unsinkability, ability to break ice up to 2,5 m thick, habitability, etc. You can find a worthy use for it in NH. All this requires a lot of power, time and money. The shortage of both does not make it possible to implement reasonable projects proposed by forum members.
    1. +1
      23 May 2013 17: 20
      If nothing else is given, then carry out careful conservation, but, as in the song; ".. DON'T RUIN MEN, DON'T RUIN, SAVE THE SHIPS."
    2. -1
      23 May 2013 17: 22
      agree. everything is described in great detail...
    3. 0
      23 May 2013 17: 42
      Worthy comment + hi
  65. +2
    23 May 2013 18: 08
    I support the general opinion that has developed on the forum - before throwing away such expensive things as submarines, you should think very carefully. Otherwise, somehow all this happens very easily here. Betrayal cannot be ruled out. For people obsessed with thirst profit, it doesn’t matter what to sell - the property of the army or the Motherland, as long as they pay well.
  66. +2
    23 May 2013 19: 06
    Modernization is expensive, but stealing is not expensive? They started cutting and mastering. It was possible to convert them into carriers of cruise missiles, but no, cut the damn parade of crooked and wretched ones.
  67. -1
    23 May 2013 19: 45
    More worrying is the pace of Bulava production. Expanding the production base for ICBM production is a priority task. Otherwise, there are boats, but there’s no point...
    As for the Sharks.. It’s too late to drink Borjomi. If the kidneys have fallen off....
    Previously, it was necessary to shout the guard. Now there are no missiles for them. They can probably be converted for a missile carrier, but they are noisy for non-strategic nuclear submarines.
    But Rudolff's proposal to convert them into a launch pad sounds very tempting.
  68. Edward
    -2
    23 May 2013 19: 52
    Before reading the article and the answers, just looking at the picture:
    - in which direction is the boat sailing in the second photo of the article?
    :)
    1. Edward
      -1
      25 May 2013 22: 20
      but my question was not idle and without any allegories!
      I think the boat is standing!
      1. Edward
        0
        6 June 2013 23: 05
        Perhaps the downvoters will refute or at least justify what they disagree with? :)
        "- in which direction is the boat sailing in the second photo of the article?" This is a riddle question, a game question!
        Sailors must understand, just like intelligent people!
  69. Wolf3000
    +1
    23 May 2013 20: 25
    Why not place anti-ship missiles or cruise missiles in the silos, capable of hitting coastal targets, transferring these boats from the category of strategic to the category of attack? They're making a bit of a fuss about the price of the rework. Placing triple or quadruple containers with cruise missiles in silos and carrying out intermediate repairs with modernization of navigation equipment cannot be equivalent to building a new boat, let alone two.
  70. +1
    23 May 2013 20: 28
    I suspect that a lot of money and effort is being spent on this submarine, which is simply disproportionate to its actual current usefulness, because without its main weapons - the formidable R-39 missiles, it is deprived of its purpose - a carrier of strategic nuclear weapons. If the visibility of the Borey is not higher than that of the Shark, then the exchange is quite logical. This, on the plus side, adds to the dispersion of submarines.
  71. +2
    23 May 2013 20: 36
    I welcome everyone! hi I read the news, it’s a shame, Great Ships! I read the comments, weighed the pros and cons, I’m more inclined towards Boreas because this is a new project and even with ready-made missiles. And it’s a great pity for the Sharks. I’m a former submariner myself, and our lead RTM was cut, but They replaced the “beasts”, and they will also replace the Borea Sharks. But you can’t cut them! We need to come up with a more rational approach, the idea with the club is original or something like that.
  72. NOBODY EXCEPT US
    +5
    23 May 2013 20: 37
    There is no need to break or build a big mind .... it seems to me that showdowns between design bureaus play a big role here .... in the Union they cut up ready-made missiles, for example N-1, because of the behind-the-scenes struggle for the order and also conducted research and made weighty arguments , and not only rockets, but a lot more........there are a lot of examples....
  73. +4
    23 May 2013 21: 00
    The decision to decommission (destruct) the Akula was made a year ago by then-President Medvedev, under the pretext of the lack of missile ammunition for them, which, as he believed, had all been previously destroyed to please the Americans. And when the then commander of the Russian Navy reported that the Russian patriots had retained some of the necessary missiles to equip these submarines with them (until new ones were built), Medvedev fired him. So draw conclusions from here. In my opinion, another sabotage action is being prepared to undermine the country’s defense capability. Of course, I am not an expert on submarines, but I absolutely know that a good owner will first build a new house and then destroy the old one. After all, you need money for scrapping, not to mention the fact that until the construction of a new one is completed, you will have to live in the open air. We have already destroyed so many, there is not enough space to list them. Re-equip the army, and then destroy it if necessary. Otherwise, you keep feeding the nightingale with fables, that is, with single deliveries and promises.
  74. +3
    23 May 2013 21: 38
    “BZHRK missiles could launch in just 1 (!) minute from any section of a thousand-kilometer route branched across the territory of the USSR and, at the same time, be undetected and completely invulnerable.
    In total, there were at least 100 such missiles in the permanent warhead (!). Which could completely destroy Europe and the USA more than once.
    Gorbaty removed these trains from combat duty and designated their permanent location for the United States. Yeltsin began dismantling them... and Putin in 2005, being the President of Russia, personally gave an order for complete DESTRUCTION i.e. cutting up ALL (!) BZHRK. The USA allocated money and equipment for THIS.
    This FACT is being hushed up in every possible way in the Russian media, like other similar ones, where Putin, as a top official, directly or indirectly (through the appointment of incompetent or “his” people) destroyed the Military Power of Russia, its economy." --- It looks like the destruction of the "Sharks" from same opera, Well, they have served their time as weapons, but they can certainly be used for peaceful purposes. There are still ships that are almost 100 years old, and here there is metal fatigue, they don’t have to dive to 600m, just that in extreme cases, dive under the ice. You can, let’s say, build a floating cosmodrome, but I may be wrong here.
  75. +3
    23 May 2013 21: 38
    “BZHRK missiles could launch in just 1 (!) minute from any section of a thousand-kilometer route branched across the territory of the USSR and, at the same time, be undetected and completely invulnerable.
    In total, there were at least 100 such missiles in the permanent warhead (!). Which could completely destroy Europe and the USA more than once.
    Gorbaty removed these trains from combat duty and designated their permanent location for the United States. Yeltsin began dismantling them... and Putin in 2005, being the President of Russia, personally gave an order for complete DESTRUCTION i.e. cutting up ALL (!) BZHRK. The USA allocated money and equipment for THIS.
    This FACT is being hushed up in every possible way in the Russian media, like other similar ones, where Putin, as a top official, directly or indirectly (through the appointment of incompetent or “his” people) destroyed the Military Power of Russia, its economy." --- It looks like the destruction of the "Sharks" from same opera, Well, they have served their time as weapons, but they can certainly be used for peaceful purposes. There are still ships that are almost 100 years old, and here there is metal fatigue, they don’t have to dive to 600m, just that in extreme cases, dive under the ice. You can, let’s say, build a floating cosmodrome, but I may be wrong here.
    1. +2
      24 May 2013 12: 38
      Quote: varov14
      BZHRK missiles could launch in just 1 (!) minute from any section of a thousand-kilometer route branched across the territory of the USSR and, at the same time, be undetected and completely invulnerable.

      Undoubtedly, the Scalpel was a wonderful complex. One clarification. The launches were carried out from strictly defined locations, when the ICBM was “placed on pegs,” which means that its location was known with an accuracy of 10 m. All this is called geodetic reference. The coordinates of the launch site are entered into the rocket's on-board computer. The more accurately you know your location, the more accurately the missile will arrive at the target point, the less work the correction system will do, and so on.
      1. Edward
        -1
        25 May 2013 22: 45
        That's right, but there were a lot of pegs). They looked more like a fence than a stake in a goat's garden! (by peg I mean the number of parking lots)
        I remember the old story that “two points in infinite space can be calculated, but three is no longer possible.” What I mean is that even with limited space, increasing the number of points makes the task no less difficult. In other words, a dozen Sharks plus a dozen (to your conversation with Varov14)) BZHRK - and all super-computers will freeze for centuries!
        I doubt it only for the start in one minute) - this is definitely a story.
  76. +5
    23 May 2013 21: 39
    I'm tired of explaining already. sharks are strategists, the main task is to be unnoticed, I already wrote that the amers have portraits of sharks, they know their disadvantages and how to detect them, that is, if necessary, sharks will be destroyed much earlier than they can fire missiles... and the fact that this is a unique boat there is no doubt. modernization for cruise missiles is ineffective. because it is very expensive. Moreover, we build ash trees for cruise missiles.
    1. +2
      23 May 2013 23: 42
      Yes, you’ve already got enough, they don’t even need to leave the pier, they can get the states from the base (for now, hypothetically), there’s no need to cut your mind. What will you be left with? The political situation in the world is changing, the redistribution of Africa has begun, followed by Antarctica, and then Siberia? And you with your naked b.o.p.o.y. How they are fighting now (both in terms of timing and quality), so you still need to look at these Boreas!
      1. donchepano
        -2
        24 May 2013 10: 04
        Quote: Argon
        Yes, you’ve already got it, they don’t even need to leave the pier, they can get staff from the base


        Indigo, with the tenacity of a pest maniac (similar to Karish), promotes harmful ideas, such as the turning of rivers that will lead to climate change in Russia and waterlogging. destruction of the BZHRK, Tu 160, Satan.
      2. +5
        24 May 2013 13: 11
        Quote: Argon
        they don’t even need to leave the pier, they can get staff from the base too(

        Absolutely true, but provided: a) there are combat-ready missiles that are safe in terms of shelf life; b) the r/complex is in service and there are spare parts (or professionals) to repair it, c) the navigation complex, energy, and other systems ensure its operation... If these conditions are not met, then there is no need to talk about the BG. Judging by your avatar, you, Sergei Vladimirovich, are a pilot. You didn’t have to, like me, return to base with the mine lid open and the fox’s tail. And all because those at the top really wanted to extend the service life of the rockets... of the G series, once again. But it was a liquid rocket, and a solid rocket explodes!!! Have you seen the Challenger? So, emotions aside (as a sailor who gave 37 years to the Navy, it’s a hundred times more offensive to me than to you when they cut up ships that could still serve). At the top sit worthy, competent fleet leaders. They are responsible for the security of the country and people. I am sure that this decision was given to them in their blood. But not a single Defense Ministry or Supreme Commander will allow maintaining uncombat-ready units, which it is not known when they will be introduced into the line. The issue of strategists is decided at the level of the Defense Council, not admirals. Believe me, this is a government decision. If you are a military man, do it! I don’t agree - report to the table, as did the General Staff of the Navy Abramov.
        Sorry for the emotions, it’s just offensive when we, sailors, are reproached for something for which we are not to blame.
        1. Lighting
          -1
          24 May 2013 13: 50
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          At the top sit worthy, competent fleet leaders

          This is irony. At the top sit unworthy and unteachable leaders, continuing the glorious line of Gorshkov - a non-serial zoo.
          1. +2
            24 May 2013 22: 52
            Quote: Lighting
            unworthy and unteachable leaders continuing the glorious line of Gorshkov

            Dear! Do you know at least one of these leaders of the modern fleet PERSONALLY? to make conclusions so offensive to the navy about the professional competence of their leaders?
            What about S.G. Gorshkova You are right: under him, the USSR Navy was at the peak of its development. The fleet has become an ocean-going, nuclear-missile fleet, a worthy opponent to the US Navy.
            About the "menagerie". Today the problem is solved by unifying systems and types of MBT.
            You can object. Just reasoned, no need for your blah blah about anything.
            Closer to the topic, sir!
    2. 0
      24 May 2013 14: 43
      if the "sharks" are converted as carriers of anti-ship missiles for use in future AUGs, everything you say will not matter
  77. USNik
    +1
    23 May 2013 21: 53
    Gorbaty removed these trains from combat duty and designated their permanent location for the United States. Yeltsin began dismantling them... and Putin in 2005, as President of Russia, personally ordered complete DESTRUCTION
    You say terrible things, I don’t want to believe them. Maybe there was simply no point in expensive, meaningless (after all the data was transferred to the states) and ultimately dangerous nuclear trains? The depot is gone, there are no questions here, but the technology for creating a BZHRK has not been lost, if you look through the relevant resources, you will be convinced of this. An attempt to compare 100 summer steamships with a nuclear submarine crammed with mechanisms looks even stupider
    There are still ships that are almost 100 years old, and this is due to metal fatigue; they don’t have to dive to 600m, at least they only have to dive under the ice.
    From these expensive titanium colossi it is possible to make not 1 or 2 new, more relevant submarines, armed with the latest missiles that tear apart the missile defense system into the St. George's Cross.
    1. donchepano
      -2
      24 May 2013 10: 08
      Are you a "prisoner of conscience"?
      They helped in the destruction of the USSR
  78. +6
    23 May 2013 21: 54
    It's a pity. In the 80s, she participated in sea trials on the lead submarine of this project. The boat was impressive.
    1. +7
      23 May 2013 22: 41
      Quote: xomaNN
      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, (+).

      Quote: xomaNN
      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?

      Quote: USNik
      Stealth-stealth and once again stealth.
      And how can such a colossus be guaranteed to be hidden and hushed up !?
      NO HOW!

      Quote: xomaNN
      What's the point of modernizing them? The maintenance of these submarines costs our state a pretty penny (1,5-2 times more expensive than submarines of a similar purpose). And as for modernization: it is UNCONDITIONALLY EXPENSIVE, given


      I read the comments. I chose some, but not all, of course. What to say. I apologize in advance for my rudeness. Country of fools. Some people write that they are expensive to maintain, some people write that they are easy to find in the ocean, etc. A wild mare's delirium. fool
      I’ll post an article that eloquently explains everything:

      Our US "Sharks" had their nuclear teeth pulled out
      http://topwar.ru/19067-nashim-akulam-ssha-vyrvali-yadernye-zuby.html

      Russia has three of the world's largest strategic submarine missile carriers. But there’s no sense in them

      When our I.D.I.O.T.Y they cut the BZDRK and missiles from these sharks, the Americans squealed with happiness. We are reaping the fruits of this today. Because they know that there will be no retaliatory strike from Russia. Therefore, now we see that we are surrounded by missile defense, NATO bases, etc. And ours, humiliating themselves to the whole world, demand some kind of security guarantees from NATO!!! wassat I bet the entire NATO is rolling on the floor laughing!
  79. 0
    24 May 2013 00: 00

    How curly-haired admires Typhoon! And we cut fool
    where there was also talk about a titanium hull. It turns out that titanium reduces noise and the Americans said that they could make boats out of gold since titanium is more expensive for them
  80. +2
    24 May 2013 00: 21
    Quote: Argon
    Yes, you’ve already got enough, they don’t even need to leave the pier, they can get the states from the base (for now, hypothetically), there’s no need to cut your mind. What will you be left with? The political situation in the world is changing, the redistribution of Africa has begun, followed by Antarctica, and then Siberia? And you with your naked b.o.p.o.y. How they are fighting now (both in terms of timing and quality), so you still need to look at these Boreas!

    what will you shoot with? and you haven’t forgotten START 3, we have lemit... go to Wikipedia and look, we have enough strategic class submarines, but they say they can shoot from the pier, so poplars exist for this... in general, you can’t argue for anything concrete!! just shout that everything is bad with us... I’ll tell you a little secret when it was decided that we would restore sharks or 1144 the decision fell on 1144, since we have no disaster with our submarine fleet yet, but there is trouble with our surface ships.
    1. 0
      24 May 2013 01: 46
      Yes, even if we built everything we wanted (surface fleet), we are like flies against NATO, in the event of a crisis like the “Caribbean”, the Erefia will only be able to argue its policy with boats, no one will care about the treaties. Take an interest in the quality of the “cheetah”, for example, before you “ Boreans" hope.
    2. donchepano
      -1
      24 May 2013 10: 12
      Quote: indiggo
      what will you shoot with? and you haven’t forgotten START 3, we have lemit... go to Wikipedia


      Learn Russian first, Mr. Agent...
      "I'll tell you a secret..."
      And Wikipedia was probably also compiled by the “Knights of the Cloak and Dagger” agency
  81. +1
    24 May 2013 00: 26
    Quote: nycsson
    When our I.D.I.O.T.S cut the BZDRK and missiles from these sharks, the Americans squealed with happiness. We are reaping the fruits of this today. Because they know that there will be no retaliatory strike from Russia. Therefore, now we see that we are surrounded by missile defense, NATO bases, etc. And ours, humiliating themselves to the whole world, demand some kind of security guarantees from NATO!!! I bet the entire NATO is rolling on the floor laughing!


    If it were possible to hit us with impunity, they would have already hit us. This is exactly what pros are built for.
  82. USNik
    +1
    24 May 2013 10: 13
    People, not everything is so bad, our new submarines are being built and are on the database. With NATO members everything is much more fun:
    The new submarine, the creation of which the Spanish Ministry of Defense spent about 2,2 billion euros, at the last stage of readiness discovered an annoying defect: it can go under water, but cannot emerge, The Telegraph reports.
    http://www.newsru.com/world/23may2013/submarine.html

    belay fellow laughing
  83. +2
    24 May 2013 11: 14
    Learn Russian first, Mr. Agent...
    "I'll tell you a secret..."
    And Wikipedia was probably also compiled by the “Knights of the Cloak and Dagger” agency

    You probably have all the agents who disagree with your opinion...))
    1. +2
      24 May 2013 11: 45
      in this situation, the state cannot afford to leave these boats. since their effectiveness with current detection means is very low, and operation costs a lot of money. we live in a different country with a different economy. We are not Americans, we have a printing press. we cannot act as the USSR acted; indeed, during the time of the drunkard, catastrophic mistakes were made. The Ministry of Defense adopted a new strategy, according to which it was decided to remove these boats, but we will be able to restore our other boats.
      You can think of me as whoever you want, but the decision was deliberate, this is the harsh reality. we must act and think about the future. those who know the real state of affairs in the fleet will understand.
  84. 0
    24 May 2013 15: 22
    Kind! In fact, if I’m not mistaken, there was an article on the site about the fact that “The Americans pulled out the nuclear teeth of our Sharks.” Yes, impressive size, yes, the readiness of the device, but on the other hand, the lack of weapons, the “stamp of time”, venerable age and a whole set of factors for which the further use of these ships at the pier does not make sense. Someone said that recycling is an expensive business - everything is true, but the resulting materials will cost a round sum. It’s a little sad, but it’s probably really a source of peace for them.
  85. xan
    -2
    24 May 2013 21: 40
    father-in-law is retired; he completed his service at one of the St. Petersburg research institutes at the beginning of the two thousandth.
    said that even when creating boats of this project, many specialists considered it unreasonable and “a victory of ambition and gigantism over common sense.” Currently, there are much more profitable solutions in terms of technological advancement and much more profitable financially. And among the boats that were contemporaries of the Sharks, the most popular strategists among submariners were the Dolphins.
  86. Edward
    0
    7 June 2013 00: 07
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34jSVkrZtSQ
    "The ascent of Yuri Dolgoruky" or "Shark" takes off!
    This is with her size!

    and just for fun
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPJRM_c95XY
    Project 941 "Shark"