Military Review

Construction of submarines: plans and problems

43
The implementation of the current State Arms Development Program is associated with enormous costs - by 2020, about 20 trillion rubles will be spent. However, even with such funding, a host of questions arise regarding the distribution of money. In recent weeks, the problem of timely payment for the defense industry has been raised again. This time, the discussion touched upon the construction of new submarines for the Russian naval fleet.


In early June, an update appeared on the plans of the Ministry of Defense for the construction of nuclear submarines. According to Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral V. Chirkov, in the coming years the fleet will receive eight Borei strategic submarines, five of which will be built in accordance with the upgraded version of the 955А project. Shipbuilding will also supply seven multi-purpose submarines of the project "Ash". As in the case of the Boreas, the last few boats of the series will be built in accordance with the updated 885M project and the fleet will receive six upgraded submarines.

It is worth noting, previously called the most different numbers, from six to ten boats of each type. However, in recent months, the number of planned to build submarines remains at about the same level, from which we can draw the appropriate conclusions. This fact can serve as confirmation of the fact that the Ministry of Defense has finally decided on its needs and intends to acquire precisely eight strategic and seven multi-purpose submarines. To date, only one out of a dozen submarines has been accepted into the fleet; this is the strategic submarine cruiser Yuri Dolgoruky. Two more boats of the same type are currently being tested. The same applies to the head ship of the type "Ash", bearing the name "Severodvinsk". In the spring it was claimed that these three submarines would be put into service by the end of the year. These plans have not yet been adjusted and, probably, already this year the Russian Navy will receive two strategic boats and one multipurpose.



The fact is obvious that the construction of new nuclear submarines is costing the country huge sums. However, as it turned out, the cost of submarines is much higher than planned. A few days ago, Deputy Prime Minister D. Rogozin gave the following figures. Initially it was planned that the construction of "Yuri Dolgoruky" will cost the budget about 20 billion rubles, but in the end about 50 billion was spent. Rogozin also recalled the events of 2011, when contracts for the construction of new submarines were concluded only in the autumn, which almost led to the disruption of the state defense order. The main reason for those events was the disagreement of industry and officials of the Ministry of Defense. For a long time they could not agree on a pricing system, which as a result led to such a late signing of contracts.

The essence of the conflict between the ministry and the industry was as follows. The Ministry of Defense wanted to see a more transparent pricing system in order to reduce unnecessary costs and reduce costs, and shipbuilders did not want to meet it. Such a disagreement between departments, dictated primarily by financial interests, almost led to a scandal. Ultimately, both sides managed to find a common language, but in the future the consequences of such an agreement appeared. According to Rogozin, the previous leadership of the Ministry of Defense, wanting to reduce the cost of the ordered equipment, put pressure on the leadership of the shipbuilding industry, which was the reason for the increase in cost due to the mass of additional costs.

And yet, despite these problems, the construction of new submarines is on schedule. As for the additional costs themselves, the Ministry of Defense is seeking opportunities for such funding. However, if we take into account the specific formation of the final cost of the Yury Dolgoruky and, with certain reservations, extrapolate it to the entire series of submarines, then the prospects may not be very good. Regular problems that require additional costs can lead to a significant increase in the cost of the entire construction program of strategic and multipurpose submarines. Naturally, such things cause a negative reaction from the Ministry of Finance.

As reported by the media, the leadership of the Ministry of Finance once again began to come out with a proposal to reconsider the financing plans of the state rearmament program. So, it is proposed to slightly reduce the allocations for some long-term projects and save money by increasing the time frame for their implementation. Among such long-term projects may be the construction of nuclear submarines. The Ministry of Defense and the government have not yet made a decision on this matter and, probably, the proposals of the financiers are only being discussed.

As Deputy Prime Minister D. Rogozin said, the country's leadership is now looking for ways to correct the existing shortcomings and ensure normal and correct pricing. While it is impossible to say exactly how the method will be implemented all these plans. Various proposals on this topic began to appear in the year before last, during the proceedings around contracts for the construction of submarines and surface ships. Part of them was taken into account and applied in the formation of prices. After almost two years, it seems the time has come to evaluate the existing pricing system adopted by the old leadership of the Ministry of Defense and make the necessary adjustments to it.


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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Tarpon
    Tarpon 14 June 2013 07: 55 New
    +7
    ... the leadership of the Ministry of Finance again began to come forward with a proposal to revise financing plans for the State rearmament program. So, it is proposed to slightly reduce the allocation for some long-term projects and save money by increasing the timing of their implementation. Among such long-term projects may be the construction of nuclear submarines.

    God forbid.
    1. chaushevski
      chaushevski 14 June 2013 12: 49 New
      0
      this is for you to talk with zaryaryash, he will tell you why we need the fleet and especially the submarines who know him, they will understand))
      1. Barabas
        Barabas 17 June 2013 22: 39 New
        0
        It cost a salary to builders and designers! And that's it! Everything else is state-folk!
  2. Dima190579
    Dima190579 14 June 2013 08: 40 New
    0
    And how much did the underwater cruiser cost in the USSR and where did the money come from?
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 14 June 2013 15: 24 New
      +3
      Here no one will tell you for sure. 30 years ago, and the ruble was different. But you should pay attention to the fact that the market factor and, most importantly, outrageous corruption were excluded from pricing at that time. There were no bonuses to management, golden parachutes and Italian furniture in cabins. And mass construction reduced the price. But, in general, the military-industrial complex and the armed forces were expensive, more than a third of the budget (sometimes half). Now - it's the other way around ...
      Money in the late USSR was taken as it is now - from oil and gas, though still, in part, and from heavy engineering and ferrous metallurgy (not now). Then all the money is the state's income. Now, in addition to the oligarchs, the order in state-owned companies is quite market-based. It's just that the guys under the "roof" of the state trade and share a little more actively. That's not enough money ...
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 14 June 2013 17: 58 New
        +4
        Quote: Bronis
        Money in the late USSR was taken, as it is now, from oil and gas, but still, partly, from heavy engineering and ferrous metallurgy (now - no).

        This is not entirely true. In the USSR, there was non-cash money in production. That is, the volume of production depended only on labor and resources.
        This, in fact, is one of the main advantages of the socialist economy.
        The amount of money should have corresponded to the number of goods produced. Well, imports were purchased for the currency.
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 14 June 2013 20: 08 New
          +1
          Yes, if we proceed from the realities of the then economy. Self-financing is more of an exception. In the case of the military-industrial complex of the USSR, it is more appropriate to speak not about money, but about national wealth, because everything is state and according to plan. But the term "money" is easier for everyday use.
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 14 June 2013 23: 06 New
            0
            Quote: Bronis
            In the case of the military-industrial complex of the USSR, it is more appropriate to speak not about money, but about national wealth, because everything is state and according to plan. But the term "money" is easier for everyday use.

            I agree. Therefore, there was enough "money" for everything.
            By the way, for this reason, it is simply impossible to accurately determine the size of the USSR's military budget. For this, its economy had to be mentally "transferred" to market rails. This is what the CIA did.
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 15 June 2013 00: 22 New
      0
      Quote: Dima190579
      how much did a submarine cost in the USSR
      The third building of the BDRM cost the country a little more than 1 billion rubles in 1986 prices

      And the furniture in the cabins and the commander’s cabin was made by the woodworking workshop of the same NSR. By the way, they produced excellent furniture then
  3. Predator-74
    Predator-74 14 June 2013 08: 44 New
    +3
    Who will not feed his aria - will feed someone else's.
    1. Russian
      Russian 14 June 2013 12: 26 New
      +4
      Naturally, our army needs to be financed and equipped with the latest weapons, but it turns out that we are feeding officials, not the army!
      It was originally planned that the construction of "Yuri Dolgoruky" will cost the budget about 20 billion rubles, but in the end it was spent about 50 billion.

      It is interesting from what the hell the price has risen in 2,5 times ??
      1. Botanologist
        Botanologist 14 June 2013 14: 30 New
        +2
        Quote: р_у_с_с_к_и_й
        It is interesting from what the hell the price has risen in 2,5 times ??


        And with the same price as milk, gasoline, iron, and everything else. Inflation, tariffs, etc. And again, how many times did the Defense Ministry make adjustments and "wishes" during construction? How much has the Bulava become more expensive? How many times has equipment been redesigned and contractors changed? So it dripped drop by drop.
  4. Volkhov
    Volkhov 14 June 2013 09: 00 New
    +7
    Most recently, boats were massively cut - there were too many of them ... now they are urgently ordering, because there are too few - they would explain to people what kind of changes, how many Fridays in the week, where did those in the ranks go ... when they started building submarines, they immediately built the Volkhov (now the Commune) ship to pull them out and it has been in service for 100 years, so maybe an analogue is needed in a larger size for global plans?
    1. Mizhgan
      Mizhgan 14 June 2013 09: 36 New
      10
      Quote: Volkhov
      More recently, boats were massively massacred - there were too many of them ... now they are urgently ordering, because there are too few - they would explain to the people what changes there are, how many Fridays in the week, where those that were in service ...

      Gorbachev and Yeltsin will answer this question. These ue ... ki clearly knew what and how much the USSR and Russia needed. Or rather, not the USSR and Russia, but the Pentagon.
      1. Volkhov
        Volkhov 14 June 2013 14: 01 New
        +4
        So the power did not change - except that it was absolutized and loves to communicate with the people - in a zombie creature they would have shown a fairy tale with hints.
  5. Marconi41
    Marconi41 14 June 2013 09: 38 New
    +4
    Our industrialists are fighting the army at a price of two or even three more than it actually is. The consequences of the 90s, when less than 100% of the case is not done in case of profit. Therefore, there is no transparency and never will be. Probably it is necessary for the state to once again buy up to 40 percent of the shares of defense industry enterprises in order to have a significant vote in management councils. Unfortunately, market principles are not possible here; too many enterprises will be monomolists in their field.
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 14 June 2013 10: 40 New
      +3
      Quote: Marconi41
      Our industrialists are fighting the army at a price of two or even three more than it actually is.

      Painfully the pie is fat, they can't share everything. And we need boats and what is the first thing! This is a really strong and tough argument for our "potential partners". hi
    2. doktor_alex
      doktor_alex 14 June 2013 17: 24 New
      0
      Quote: Marconi41
      Our industrialists are fighting the army at a price of two or even three more than it actually is.


      And what about gentlemen, a market economy .... besides, the methods of payment for the work performed make Sevmash constantly sit head over heels in loans, the percentages of which, of course, are also included in the price.

      Quote: Marconi41
      Probably it is necessary for the state to again buy up 40 percent of the shares of defense industry enterprises in order to have a significant vote in the management councils.


      All enterprises of the military-industrial complex, although OAO, are completely under state control, as the state has 50% + 1 share.
  6. Barabas
    Barabas 14 June 2013 10: 02 New
    -8
    Not understood! if the doctrine of "border protection", on the fig aircraft carriers, submarines, and other expensive equipment? is the old truth that any ship loses to the coastal battery is already outdated? Increase the range of anti-ship missiles and keep your foe in suspense! or Russia has nowhere to put money? You need to show the Flag so there are Eagles! Demonstrate! Fuck in the bases to stand. And the generals and admirals always lack toys.
    1. vadimN
      vadimN 14 June 2013 10: 18 New
      +8
      Dear, what coastal battery are you going to withstand, for example, an American missile-carrying boat, which can hammer from Moscow’s North Atlantic without even creeping close to our shores?
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 17 June 2013 12: 18 New
        +1
        Quote: vadimN
        an American missile-carrying boat, which can hammer from the North Atlantic around Moscow

        When the Yankees had Poseidons S-3, the 41 for Freedom combat patrol area was located in the Philippines region (from there all targets in the southern part of Siberia were hit) - there they were caught by the Pacific Fleet

        The modern Trident-2D-5 SLBM has a 2-fold longer flight range - where is the American missile carrier now to search ??? Most likely in the area of ​​Hawaii, in the United States, but you can’t go into the free zones, these are the things


        Voiced by you the anti-submarine defense task completely outlived itself with the advent of SLBMs with a range of 8-10 thousand km
    2. Arberes
      Arberes 14 June 2013 10: 44 New
      +5
      Quote: Drum
      Not understood! if the doctrine of "border protection", what about aircraft carriers, submarines, and other expensive equipment?

      What will you search for enemy boats off our shores? Anticarabule complexes or what? So as far as I know they are not intended for this yet!
      All smart countries try to neutralize their enemy at distant approaches, and not in their own canopies.
      1. Barabas
        Barabas 14 June 2013 10: 59 New
        0
        I agree! I'm not a strategist. But for some reason the thought gnaws at me that the saying that "current generals are preparing for the last war" does not go out of my head. Why look for submarines? Well, not with other submarines! And you can't catch all of them. A dozen or so somewhere will sit in ambush and "ANSWER". There is no way out, not there!
        1. Arberes
          Arberes 14 June 2013 11: 17 New
          +3
          Quote: Drum
          . what to look for submarines? Well, not with other submarines! And you can't catch all of them. A dozen or so somewhere will sit in ambush and "ANSWER". There is no way out, not there!

          Respected Barabas, Hello again hi
          That's it, that you need a whole complex of "toys"! Detection aircraft, helicopters, where can we go without them, ships capable of performing a wide range of tasks (including detecting enemy nuclear submarines) and the boats themselves, for detecting and tracking enemy ships and boats and destroying them, if it goes!
          Yes, and space satellites, for detection and targeting! Target design after all should someone give out?
          1. Barabas
            Barabas 14 June 2013 18: 01 New
            0
            no less respected Arberes!
            I’m distracted here, I had to make one design on the farm
            and here's a thought came. We are submarines, they are submarines, we are missiles "partners" in the same steppe. We are S-300 ONE Patriots. So you can butt until the second coming. Russia's nuclear arsenal, even blown up on its territory, is GUARANTEED destroys civilization. ... and all go through the forest, black, yellow, in a box and an asterisk !!! just to explain, jumping with a grenade under a tank is our national fun !!!
            1. aleshka
              aleshka 14 June 2013 19: 36 New
              +2
              and you tried with a grenade under the tank ??? Or just a tank without a grenade ??
              1. Barabas
                Barabas 14 June 2013 19: 53 New
                +1
                I haven’t tried it! but I know the theory, and just believe, need will come, God forbid, I won’t take you with your questions as partners.
    3. Barabas
      Barabas 14 June 2013 23: 47 New
      0
      the campaign ran into two generals and one admiral.
  7. sevtrash
    sevtrash 14 June 2013 10: 23 New
    +1
    I wonder what the control post looks like or what it is called in the new Russian submarines. As they show on TV, American ones have solid touch screens or, like "Sharks", they have prehistoric bulbs. It is clear - an external attribute, which, however, reflects the capabilities of electronics and developed programs. However, and so it is clear, maybe there is, but qualitatively thinner.
    Is something adequate to Aegis even on the way? It is clear that the BIOs exist for a long time, but different. Is there a qualitative classification, I wonder, like generation 5?
    1. Barabas
      Barabas 14 June 2013 11: 03 New
      0
      Have you seen the Felix adding machine? Imagine it the size of a bus! wassat such a thing is worth it! wink
      1. Barabas
        Barabas 14 June 2013 18: 05 New
        0
        either they don’t understand the jokes, or they didn’t see Felix. belay
    2. aleshka
      aleshka 14 June 2013 19: 44 New
      -2
      typhoon shark is what the United States was afraid to tremble in the knees !!! and are still afraid, despite the ugly bulbs !!!
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 14 June 2013 20: 25 New
        0
        Actually, it was about electronics, acoustics, BIOS.
    3. dimjet
      dimjet 14 June 2013 21: 50 New
      0
      Watch the January program SERVICE OF RUSSIA on TV Star, they show the command post on Alexander Nevsky. Lots of LCD screens!
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 14 June 2013 22: 41 New
        +1
        The screens are, of course, good. It would be nice if their presence reflected at least parity in acoustics and electronics.
    4. Misantrop
      Misantrop 15 June 2013 00: 33 New
      0
      Quote: sevtrash
      As they show on TV, American ones have solid touch screens or, like "Sharks", they have prehistoric bulbs.

      But these "prehistoric bulbs" are in the same "prehistoric buttons-switches", each of which has a resource of half a million switches (seriously, not funny). And they fail, BY THE PIECE, and the touch screen in the event of a malfunction goes out ALL. Is the difference clear? And in conditions close to combat?

      By the way, on the then BIUS "Omnibus" there was a function of entering information directly on the monitor screen (1986). How long have such opportunities appeared on advanced American technology?
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 15 June 2013 14: 02 New
        0
        Well, where does the number of switches? It is a graphic display of a large (large, huge) amount of information in real time with the ability to correct display and control. And here is the light bulb?
        1. Cat
          Cat 15 June 2013 15: 10 New
          +1
          Quote: sevtrash
          Well, where does the number of switches?

          There are 50 separate buttons for 50 different teams. With a resource of 500000 switching, each command can be issued, respectively, 500000 times. But if for 50 commands one switch is used (the same touch screen) - with a similar resource, each command can be issued only 10000 times. Catch the difference? =)
          Further: if one of the switches fails, the remaining 49 commands remain available, and the indication in the form of "prehistoric" bulbs will not go anywhere either. If the touch screen fails, you will not be able to give ANY command, and you will not receive ANY information.
          In addition, the autonomous submarine is not a car in the city, you can’t drive to the nearest service station and you simply can’t call the tow truck. But still assuming such a vile thing as military action ... which system has more chances to remain operational - simple, but reliable, or fashionable super complex?

          Or an example: take any modern airliner, and look at the pictures of the cockpit. And what will you see there? That's right - there is a great bunch of buttons, bulbs, indicators, etc. etc. Although it would seem that it’s difficult: a couple of touch screens, and sit yourself, poke your fingers at the icons, all the necessary info before your eyes. Despite the fact that even the most sophisticated aircraft is several orders of magnitude simpler than the most overwhelming submarine. And his autonomy is measured for hours, not months, and no one is going to throw him into battle. And yet ... Looks like the designers have some tricky considerations in this regard, and they are unlikely to appear from scratch.
        2. Misantrop
          Misantrop 15 June 2013 16: 06 New
          +1
          Quote: sevtrash
          It is a graphic display of a large (large, huge) amount of information in real time with the ability to correct display and control.
          For this already there were screens on PURO and BIUS
          Quote: Misantrop
          on the then BIUS "Omnibus" there was a function of entering information directly on the monitor screen (1986). How long have such opportunities appeared on advanced American technology?
          The operator drew directly on the screen with a special "pen on a cord" connected to the PURO. And I did not go there with my fingers smeared in chocolate of autonomous soldering lol
          And mnemonic diagrams with keys and bulbs were used where there is a rigid circuit with a hard-wired number of strictly defined control elements. Moreover, the most important units had a 4-fold duplication (not counting manual drives). Moreover, all this, among other things, allowed for emergency repairs in combat conditions. I once changed the control key of the compensating grilles right on a working installation. This is on the WORKING AEU. I, perched nearby, controlled the work of the board with reserve controls. The touch panel will allow this? In addition, the buttons and switches that were available at that time were rigidly fixed (i.e., having felt the click of a switch under your fingers, you did not need to control its switching visually, which is extremely important in conditions of time pressure). Does the touch panel allow? As far as I know, their pressing force and its time are critical. And in the conditions of an AEU alarm triggering, the operator has about 2-4 seconds for everything about everything (before the onset of irreversible consequences). And about 50 actions (always different, depending on the situation). At the same time, it is NOT POSSIBLE to be mistaken, the operator made a mistake on the K-116, only the other day they remembered ...

          The sensor is good when there is nowhere to rush and a single action is not critical. Then you can bliss in the operator’s chair, slightly moving your fingers. But in battle ... belay sad That’s why I always say that American nuclear submarines are ideal for escalating tensions in peacetime. How they will show themselves in battle is still a VERY big question ... what
  8. strange and pretty meaningless
    strange and pretty meaningless 14 June 2013 11: 16 New
    +3
    "... the previous leadership of the Ministry of Defense, wishing to reduce the cost of ordered equipment, put pressure on the leadership of the shipbuilding industry, which caused the cost to rise due to the mass of additional costs."
    As already zae.al this politically correct bird language, the words are NOT !!! Is it really impossible to immediately give a translation !!? What the blowjob-bitching demanded to be rolled back, the aces of the military-industrial complex zopiopili, they began to nightmare - eventually agreed. A eaten piece of cheese will receive a fleet ...
  9. sub307
    sub307 14 June 2013 11: 17 New
    +4
    Yes, yes, blah, blah. All the same song: first - build, finance! Hooray! Then - "to reconsider financing" was impatient, in the direction of sequestration, "naturally". In the end: "we wanted the best, it turned out as always." Those. instead of 8 boats, 4-5 will reach the fleet with a violation of the delivery schedule and a long train of criminal cases with a financial bias. God grant that I was wrong. Until now, the basis of the naval strategic component rests on "hardware" made in the USSR.
  10. Tektor
    Tektor 14 June 2013 11: 55 New
    +4
    Unfortunately our old submarines are too noisy and too "deaf". In addition, they are analog, i.e. - not reliable, "grandfather's" generation. Problems with the conclusion of contracts - an obvious "puncture": it is impossible to produce and deliver a huge boat if it lacks a penny part, for which there was not enough allocated money. Shame!
    But not everything is so gloomy. If you strain now, you can bypass the foe on a curve ... In fact, back in 1984 the Soviet Union received a certain key to creating acoustic equipment that could hear any foreign submarines long before they heard our boats. Brothers Valentin and Viktor Leksin did the impossible: they overtook the West. Only two researchers have done what they could not and cannot do, not a single famous institute with thousands of employees. Lexins did not catch up with the Americans and follow in the wake of their technologies. They just invented a new way of acoustic detection of underwater targets. And on domestic electronics they built equipment that "sees" boats at a distance not of two to three thousand meters (the capabilities of Soviet submarines of that time), but at a distance of fifteen to 150 kilometers! It all depends on the depth of the sea, the characteristics of its bottom, water and time of year. Compare this with four kilometers for targets like "Ohio" from the Yankees themselves in 1990 ... The idea underlying the Leksins' method is generally ingenious: even the quietest and most streamlined boat, a kind of oceanic "black hole", moving in the water column, emits ultra low frequency sound waves. After all, she has to move the wheels. Once every four minutes. It cannot be otherwise: the mover of the boat (roughly speaking, a propeller or a hydro-jet nozzle) is located behind, behind the center of mass of the submarine.

    Therefore, it is constantly brought in relative to the chosen direction. So the crew has to periodically "earn money" with rudders. Either automatically or manually. But from this a thousand-ton colossus of a boat shakes a huge mass of sea water. And the higher the speed of the submarine, the stronger the vibrations. In this sense, American super-silent boats, which move completely silently even at high speed, are extremely vulnerable. Lexins were able to distinguish these waves in the sea noise and interference. They applied special signal processing, and on domestic technology. They tested their equipment, according to the specialized press, and in the Barents Sea, where it is relatively shallow, and the bottom is muddy, sound-absorbing. But even here, in testing, the Leksins' equipment was superior to the western ones! ..
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 14 June 2013 13: 18 New
      0
      Is it a legend or a reality? Was such equipment on a boat?
      1. Tektor
        Tektor 14 June 2013 14: 36 New
        0
        As far as I understood from the article, they did not test the boat - they tested the coastal complex, although it may not be right ...
        http://www.pravda.ru/society/fashion/models/23-05-2013/1157738-gidroakystika-0/
        1. sevtrash
          sevtrash 14 June 2013 15: 15 New
          0
          Having looked at the article at this link, we can conclude that only experiments were carried out. Of course it is sad. Although the true value is not clear, you need a specialist in this matter.
  11. Evgeniy46
    Evgeniy46 14 June 2013 17: 37 New
    0
    there are no special problems with SSBNs: Yuri Dolgoruky goes on first combat duty in January, and Alexander Nevsky is preparing for it. "Vladimir Monomakh" is being tested, "Prince Vladimir" is being completed. The biggest problems we have with "Ash", of which the fleet needs 20-30 pieces to replace 949,945, 971 projects
    1. True
      True 14 June 2013 17: 38 New
      -1
      20-30 pcs. it's overkill. 8 pcs at least. more economy will not pull.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 17 June 2013 12: 22 New
        0
        Quote: True
        20-30 pcs. it's overkill. 8 pcs at least. more economy will not pull.

        and 8 won't pull

        head "Severodvinsk" has been at various stages of construction and acceptance for 20 years (since 1993)

        the second boat according to the amended project 885M was laid in 2009, there is no end to construction

        on this the story of "Ash" can be considered complete
  12. aleshka
    aleshka 14 June 2013 19: 40 New
    0
    You have a suspicious "true" flag! Why do you advise us how many boats to build? The most class of 12 typhoons, each with 200 warheads, and no one will say "woof" !!!
  13. Submariner
    Submariner 15 June 2013 00: 29 New
    0
    Eugene, explain why change 971?
  14. xomaNN
    xomaNN 15 June 2013 20: 59 New
    0
    The pricing in the shipyard, unlike the planned times of the USSR, is undoubtedly muddy and includes a lot of expenses at random :)) There, of course, the bribe is also laid down, and the opportunity to play with the prices of subcontractors. And the customers of the Navy, not only that would not mind adding a bit to their salary, should ideally know exactly what they want from the new ship and the equipment ordered is no worse than the developers. Which of course is unattainable in our conditions. Alas.
  15. Zomanus
    Zomanus 16 June 2013 04: 38 New
    0
    "Ash" is needed now even more than "Borei". That would be something to cover the remaining "strategists" on the database. Well, plus there seems to be able to work on ground targets from under the water. I don’t know the surface ones on ccxn. In short, you need to improve the maritime component of missile defense mattress mats in a short time. So the "Ash" is bigger, bigger ...
  16. Misantrop
    Misantrop 16 June 2013 15: 59 New
    0
    Quote: Zomanus
    So the "Ash" is bigger, bigger ...
    It is not necessary "more", a few pieces to raise production and to establish cooperation with subcontractors. And move on to the next generation, which by that time will be ready for transfer from the design bureau to the plant. Judging by the rumors, "Rubin" has now begun to develop something very interesting, just of the same class
  17. Watchman
    Watchman 16 June 2013 18: 50 New
    0
    "Ash trees" at least 8 build, but the existing ones to be repaired, and even then you can swing at the new generation.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 17 June 2013 12: 32 New
      0
      Quote: Watchman
      "Ash trees" at least 8 build, but the existing ones to be repaired, and then you can and swing to a new generation.

      I agree.

      As part of the Russian Navy no boats 4 generationsand these already dream about the fifth

      The S-500 and the fifth generation of submarines - the meaning of the Russian military-industrial complex is as follows: when the time is right and nothing has been promised, by 2017 a new, steeper system is promised. Then S-1000 will be promised by 2025, etc. The main thing is to take time and cut the mini, showing the inhabitants on TV the puffy physiognomy of Rogozin, who will push another patriotic speech and talk about the creation of the ISS on the moon

      Installation of the nose cone of the Irtysh-Amphora SJC on the Severodvinsk nuclear submarine (project 885 Ash). The antenna itself is visible - a single structure of thousands of hydrophones