Military Review

"Shark", "Pike", "Ohio". Size matters

141

“You are a liar, Nam-bok, for everyone knows that iron cannot swim”

/Jack London/


Dear comrades, for sure, many of you visited the naval salons, climbed along the uncomfortable shaking walkways on the decks of huge ships. Wandered around the upper deck, examining launch rocket containers, spreading branches of radar and other fantastic systems.
Even such simple things as the thickness of the anchor chain (each link with a pound weight) or the radius of sweeping over the artillery barrels (more than the dacha size of the "six hundred square meters") can cause sincere shock and perplexity to the unprepared man in the street.

The dimensions of the ship mechanisms are simply enormous. Such things are not found in ordinary life - we learn about the existence of these cyclopean objects only during a visit to the ship on the regular Day of the Navy (Victory Day, on the days of the St. Petersburg International Navy Salon, etc.).
Indeed, from the point of view of a single person, small or large ships do not exist. Marine technology is striking in its dimensions - standing on a pier next to a moored corvette, the person looks like a grain of sand against the backdrop of a huge rock. The “tiny” 2500-ton corvette looks like a cruiser, and the “real” cruiser is generally paranormal in size and looks like a floating city.

The reason for this paradox is obvious:

A conventional four-axle wagon (gondola) loaded to the brim with iron ore has a mass of the order of 90 tons. Very bulky and hard stuff.

In the case of the 11 000-ton Moskva missile cruiser, we have only 11 000 tons of metal structures, cables and fuel. Equivalent - 120 rail cars with ore, tightly concentrated in a single array.


The anchor of the submarine missile carrier pr. 941 "Shark"


"Shark", "Pike", "Ohio". Size matters

How does water hold IT ?! Battle house battleship "New Jersey"

But the cruiser "Moscow" is not yet the limit - the American aircraft carrier Nimitz has a full displacement of 100 more than thousands of tons.

Truly, great is Archimedes, whose immortal law permits to keep these hulk afloat!

A big difference

Unlike surface ships and ships that can be seen at any port, the underwater component fleet possesses an increased share of stealth. It’s hard to see submarines even when entering the base, largely due to the special status of the modern submarine fleet.

Nuclear technologies, danger zone, state secret, objects of strategic importance; closed cities with a special passport regime. All this does not add to the popularity of the "steel coffins" and their glorious carriages. Nuclear-powered boats quietly nest in the secluded coves of the Arctic or hide from prying eyes on the coast of distant Kamchatka. About the existence of boats in peacetime can not hear anything. They are not suitable for naval parades and the notorious "demonstration of the flag." The only thing that can do these smooth black ships - to kill.


Baby C-189 on the background of "Mistral"

What is the "Baton" or "Pike"? How big is the legendary "Shark"? Is it true that it does not fit in the ocean?

It is rather difficult to clarify this issue - there are no visual aids on this score. The museum submarines K-21 (Severomorsk), C-189 (St. Petersburg) or C-56 (Vladivostok) are half a century old diesels from the Great Patriotic War * and do not give any idea of ​​the real size of modern submarines.

* even the relatively “fresh” C-189 built by 1950-ies was created on the basis of the German Electrobot trophy

The reader will certainly draw a lot of interesting things from the following illustration:


The relative size of the silhouettes of modern submarines in a single scale

The thickest “fish” is a heavy strategic missile submarine of the 941 project (code “Shark”).

Below - the American SSBN type "Ohio".

Below that is the underwater “aircraft carrier killer” of the 949A project "Baton" (the dead Kursk belonged to this project).

The multipurpose Russian nuclear submarine of the 971 project (code “Pike-B”) hid in the lower left corner

And the smallest of the boats represented in the illustration is the modern German diesel-electric submarine “Type 212”.

Of course, the greatest interest of the public is associated with the "Shark" (it is also “Typhoon” by NATO classification). The boat is really amazing: the length of the hull 173 meter, the height from the bottom to the roof of the cabin is equal to the 9-storey house!

Surface displacement - 23 000 tons; scuba - 48 000 tons. The numbers clearly indicate a huge reserve of buoyancy - more than 20 thousand tons of water are pumped into the ballast tanks of the boat to immerse the Shark. As a result, "Shark" got the funny nickname "water carrier" in the Navy.

With all the seeming irrationality of this solution (why the submarine has such a large reserve of buoyancy ??) the water carrier has its own characteristics and even advantages: in the surface position, the monstrous monster slump is slightly larger than that of the "ordinary" submarines - about 11 meters. This allows you to go to any home base, without the risk of running aground, and use all the available infrastructure to service the submarine. In addition, a huge reserve of buoyancy turns the "Shark" into a powerful icebreaker. When blowing tanks, the boat, according to Archimedes, with such force “rushing” upward, that even the 2-meter layer of arctic ice, which is as strong as a stone, cannot stop it. Due to this circumstance, "Sharks" could carry combat duty at the highest latitudes, up to the North Pole areas.

But even in the surface position, the “Shark” surprises with its dimensions. How else? - the largest boat in the world stories!

You can admire the shark species for a long time:




"Shark" and one of the 677 family SSBNs



The boat is just huge, there is nothing more to add.



Modern X955 "Borey" project against the background of a giant fish

The reason is simple: two submarines are hidden under a light sleek hull: the “Shark” is made according to the “catamaran” scheme with two solid hulls made of titanium alloys. 19 isolated compartments, duplicated by the GEM (each of the robust buildings has an independent nuclear steam generating unit OK-650 with a thermal capacity of 190 MW), as well as two pop-up rescue capsules designed for the entire crew ...
Needless to say - in terms of survivability, safety and ease of deploying personnel, this floating Hilton was out of competition.


Loading 90-ton "kuz'kinoy mother"
A total of ammunition boats included 20 solid-propelled SLBM P-39


Ohio

No less surprising is the comparison of the American Ohio submarine missile carrier and the domestic Sharkboard SRPSN project — it suddenly turns out that their dimensions are identical (171 meter length, 11 meter draft) ... the displacement differs many times! How so?

There is no secret here - the “Ohio” is almost half as large as the Soviet monster - 23 vs. 13 meters. However, calling Ohio a small boat would be unfair - 16 700 tons of steel structures and materials inspire respect. The Ohio submerged displacement is even larger - 18 700 tons.

Aircraft carrier killer

Another underwater monster, whose displacement exceeded the achievements of "Ohio" (in / and flood - 14 700, underwater - 24 000 tons).

One of the most powerful and sophisticated boats of the Cold War. 24 supersonic cruise missiles with a launch weight of 7 tons; eight torpedo tubes; nine isolated compartments. The working depth range is over 500 meters. Submerged speed over 30 nodes.

In order to disperse the “loaf” to such speeds, a two-stage power plant was used on the boat — day and night uranium assemblies in two OK-650 reactors burn with black light. The total energy release of 380 Megawatts is enough to provide electricity to the city for 100 000 residents.


Baton and Shark



Two loaves

But how justified was the construction of such monsters to solve tactical problems? According to a popular legend, the cost of each of the 11 built boats reached half the cost of the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrying cruiser! At the same time, the “loaf” was focused on solving purely tactical tasks - extermination of AUG, convoys, violation of enemy communications ...
Time has shown that multi-purpose submarines are most effective for such operations, for example -

Pike-B

A series of Soviet atomic multi-purpose boats of the third generation. The most terrible underwater weapon before the appearance of the American submarines of the Sivulf type.

But, you do not think that Pike-B is so small and frail. Size is a relative value. Suffice it to say that the baby does not fit on the football field. The boat is huge. The surface displacement is 8100, the underwater displacement is 12 800 tons (in the last versions it increased by another 1000 tons).



This time, the designers-designers cost one OK-650 reactor, one turbine, one shaft and one propeller. Excellent dynamics remained at the level of the 949 of the “loaf”. A modern hydro-acoustic complex and a luxurious set of weapons appeared: deep-water and self-guided torpedoes, cruise missiles “Granat” (in perspective - “Caliber”), “Shkval” missile-torpedoes, PLUR “Waterfall”, thick 65-76 torpedoes, mines ... with , the huge ship is driven by a crew of just 73 people.

Why do I say "everything"? Just an example: to control the modern American submarine "Pikes" - an unsurpassed underwater killer of the type "Los Angeles" requires a crew of 130 people! At the same time, the American, as usual, is saturated to the limit with electronics and automation systems, and its dimensions are smaller by 25% (displacement - 6000 / 7000 tons).

By the way, an interesting question: why are American boats always smaller? Is it really the fault of "Soviet chips - the biggest chips in the world" ?!
The answer seems trivial - American boats have a single-hull structure and, as a result, a smaller reserve of buoyancy. That is why the "Los Angeles" and "Virginia" are so small difference in the values ​​of surface and underwater displacement.

What is the difference between single-hull and double-hull boats? In the first case, the ballast tanks are located inside a single durable hull. Such an arrangement takes a part of the internal volume and, in a certain sense, negatively affects the survivability of the submarine. And, of course, single-submarine submarines have a much smaller reserve of buoyancy. At the same time, it makes the boat small (how small a modern submarine can be) and more quiet.

Domestic boats, traditionally, are built on a double-hull scheme. All ballast tanks and auxiliary deep-water equipment (cables, antennas towed by GUS) are outside the robust hull. The stiffening ribs of the sturdy casing are also located on the outside, saving a precious amount of interior space. On top of all this is covered with a light "shell."

Advantages: reserve of free space inside the robust case, allowing to realize special layout solutions. A greater number of systems and weapons on board the boat, increased flooding and survivability (additional depreciation at close explosions, etc.).


Nuclear Waste Storage Facility at Saida-Guba (Kola Peninsula)
Dozens of submarine reactor compartments are visible. Ugly "rings" - nothing more than stiffening ribs durable body (lightweight body pre-removed)

The drawbacks of this scheme are also present, and there is no escape from them: the large dimensions and the area of ​​wetted surfaces. A direct consequence is that the boat makes a louder noise. And if there is a resonance between a strong and light body ...

Do not flatter yourself when you hear about the “reserve of free space” indicated above. Inside the compartments of the Russian Schuku you still cannot drive mopeds and play golf - the entire reserve was spent on installing numerous sealed bulkheads. The number of habitable compartments on Russian boats usually varies between 7 ... 9 units. Maximum reached on the legendary "Shark" - the whole 19 compartments, without taking into account the sealed technological modules in the space of a light body.

For comparison, the robust hull of American Los Angeles is divided into hermetic bulkheads in only three compartments: central, reactor and turbine (of course, not counting the system of insulated decks). Americans, traditionally, put on high quality manufacturing of hull structures, equipment reliability and qualified personnel in the crews of submarines.

These are the key differences between the schools of submarines on different sides of the ocean. And the boats are still huge.


A whopping big fish. American multi-purpose submarine type "Sivulf"



Another comparison at the same scale. It turns out that the "Shark" is not so large compared to a nuclear aircraft carrier of the "Nimitz" type or the Admiral Kuznetsov type TAVKR - the dimensions of aircraft carriers are completely paranormal. The victory of technology over common sense
The little fish on the left is the Varshavyanka diesel-electric submarine



Transportation of the cut out nuclear submarine compartments



The newest Russian multi-purpose submarine K-329 "Severodvinsk" (admission to the Navy is scheduled for 2013 year).
In the background are visible two recycled "Sharks"
Author:
141 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mikhado
    Mikhado 2 July 2013 08: 12
    47
    At least one "Shark" - "Typhoon" must be preserved for History.
    It’s a pity that it’s impossible to drag it to the Kremlin - there would also be a Tsar Boat wink
    But in general - is it really impossible to find peaceful application, were they talking about an underwater tanker? Dark business ...
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 2 July 2013 09: 57
      +5
      Then the parades would have nowhere to hold, the whole place would be the king-boat took))
      1. Yura
        Yura 2 July 2013 20: 35
        +8
        But what if parades are held inside the Shark? wink
        Quote: Basileus
        Then the parades would have nowhere to hold, the whole place would be the king-boat took))
    2. Ataman
      Ataman 2 July 2013 09: 57
      +1
      I never understood that if the Bulava gets a potential enemy right from the pier, then why are they generally loaded onto boats and rolled across the sea. The mace has excessive range, as no one will let you shoot straight from the pier. Only boats that are on alert and will not be detected by the enemy will be able to fire a response salvo after the first strike.
      Whether it is the newest Russian missile Kh-102 with a nuclear warhead and a launch range of up to 5500 km and the nuclear submarine pr. 855 "Yasen", which can carry 32 pieces. At the same time, the displacement of the "Ash" is two times less than the "Borea", and, accordingly, the stealth is higher. It is on "Ash", starting from the second boat, that all the advanced developments in the field of stealth are implemented and the most advanced Russian GAS is installed. A hybrid installation is used on Ash, it can sail with the GTZA disabled. Borea has an engine compartment from Project 971, which was designed in 1980. Those. The main advantage of the submarine is that the Ash's stealth is much better than that of Borey. The lower speed of the subsonic Kh-102 is compensated by the disproportionately greater secrecy of their launch, low flight altitude and stealth technologies. The enemy's military and industrial complex is located along the western and eastern coasts. You can shoot almost point-blank, although the X-102's range of 5500 km generally covers the entire enemy territory when firing from the Pacific or Atlantic Ocean.
      Thus, as a complete layman, I believe that small boats with real secured increased secrecy and armed with cruise missiles will be much more dangerous for the enemy than the mighty Borey.
      1. Papakiko
        Papakiko 2 July 2013 11: 05
        13
        Quote: Ataman
        I never understood that if the "Bulava" gets a potential enemy right from the pier, then why are they generally loaded onto boats and rolled across the sea?

        Quote: Ataman
        A hybrid installation is used on Ash trees, it can sail with the GTZA disabled. In Korea, the engine compartment from project 971, which was designed in 1980. Those. The main advantage of the Premier League is that stealth is much better for Ashes than Borean.

        All that you know and from this do not understand?
        Some things for exclusively dedicated people are known (especially the use and use of boats and their weapons).
        For example, YAK-130 and SU-35 try to tell fortunes.
        What, in your opinion, chamolet should be discarded?
        Different boats are needed, different boats are important.
        1. Ataman
          Ataman 2 July 2013 11: 34
          +6
          I write because I want to know your opinion about the features of the use and use of boats and their weapons, which I do not know. If you understand more than mine, then please write.
          1. Papakiko
            Papakiko 2 July 2013 12: 47
            +4
            Quote: Ataman
            If you understand more than mine, then please write.

            How do you imagine that you need to cram the knowledge of more than a dozen academicians and thousands of people with higher education?
            "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is not on this continent.
            Quote: Ataman
            Distance between Murmansk and Los Angeles is 8329 km

            We not only need to keep the mattress on the "sight".
            Frogs, Bundases, Britons and so on.
            Therefore, each according to his deserts and deeds. hi
            1. Ataman
              Ataman 2 July 2013 15: 46
              +4
              Quote: Papakiko
              How do you imagine that you need to cram the knowledge of more than a dozen academicians and thousands of people with higher education?
              "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is not on this continent.

              In your opinion, one person is not able to perceive the secret of the use and use of submarines and their weapons, or at least meaningful versions, does this require the collective intelligence of more than a dozen academicians? hi
              1. Dovmont
                Dovmont 2 July 2013 16: 51
                +4
                In the twentieth century, the concept of "gunboat policy" appeared, which is still relevant in our time. The appearance of Soviet and then Russian nuclear submarines in the most unexpected places of the World Ocean has more than once sobering effect on our sworn opponents. The effect of the presence of nuclear forces is sometimes stronger than the weapons on their sides.
            2. NUT
              NUT 3 July 2013 12: 57
              +6
              Quote: Papakiko
              We not only need to keep the mattress on the "sight". Froghouses, Bundases, Brita and so on.
              Well, damn it, does anyone seriously think that Russian missiles are directed against pindos, frogs, bunds, brites, etc.?, Against those countries where 47% of Russia's gold and foreign exchange reserves are stored? More than 600 billion dollars of the country have been invested and American papers and fun are not working for us. More than 550 billion personal savings of the Russian ruling elite lie in American banks alone, and someone believes that this elite will actually threaten those very "Bundas", "Britons, etc. on whose lands their houses and villas stand. , palaces? where do their families live and prosper? their children grow up and study? When will you realize that the Russian Land for its rulers (with whom we do not drink) is a classic hacienda that brings fabulous income and stupid on that "hacienda" meek and obedient slaves.And so that these slaves were even dumber, more meek and submissive, they make the reform of education, tell sweet tales of the coming military power, order and prosperity ...
              "Russia can have as many nuclear suitcases and nuclear buttons as it wants, but since $ 500 billion of the Russian elite is in our banks, you still have to figure it out: is this your elite, or is it ours?"
              Zbigniew Brzezinski

              Gesheftmakers in the Russian Land lead and manage absolutely everything, including the defense industry - everything new and effective goes not to their own army, but is immediately sold to a "probable partner". The best for sale, but here it goes ...
              "We'll have to invent" business "... and at this time teach the gesheftmaker how to help the kind fatherland in the best manner."
              M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin: Unfinished conversations. 7.
            3. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 7 July 2013 21: 55
              0
              Quote: Papakiko
              Frogs, Bundases, Britons and so on.

              Are they a real threat to Russia?
            4. Trapperxnumx
              Trapperxnumx 8 July 2013 17: 41
              0
              Quote: Papakiko
              We not only need to keep the mattress on the "sight".
              Frogs, Bundases, Britons and so on.

              A boat under the ice is sneaking
              Something grazes in warm latitudes
              Some boat goes by the Statue
              The one that the bourgeois gave with the lantern.
              Some Japanese boat is teasing.
              Somehow - in the southern latitudes taxis.
              Some kind of boat floundering point blank.
              Something from afar - the whole conversation)))
          2. Ghenxnumx
            Ghenxnumx 8 July 2013 17: 39
            0
            Quote: Ataman
            I never understood that if the Bulava gets a potential enemy right from the pier, then why are they generally loaded onto boats and rolled across the sea. The mace has excessive range, as no one will let you shoot straight from the pier.

            He won’t give it - the grandmother even said in two - of the amers, the warriors are still those, mostly Hollywood and advertising laughing. A launch command can also be received at the berth; the nuclear weapons of all strategic nuclear forces are in constant readiness for launch, and not just on duty.
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 7 July 2013 21: 52
          0
          Quote: Papakiko
          Different boats are needed, different boats are important.

          I agree with you but combat training submarine then hto?
        3. Basarev
          Basarev 22 February 2014 23: 09
          0
          I also heard about the construction of prototypes of a concrete submarine with the main caliber in the face of Flurry.
      2. During
        During 2 July 2013 11: 09
        +9
        Does the Bulava have excessive range? If it had a range like the P-36, then I would not argue, but 8000 is not an excessive range, the missile does not cover the entire territory of the alleged enemy from its parking areas. And trying to replace an SLBM with a cruise missile is sabotage ... each missile has its own functions. This is the main ...
        1. Ataman
          Ataman 2 July 2013 11: 51
          0
          The distance between the cities of Los Angeles and Murmansk is 8329 km. Therefore, a mace with a range, according to various sources, of 8000-9300 km. takes out almost the entire territory of the enemy. But for firing from its territory, Russia has Yars and Topol-M. No one will give boats a RESPONSE volley from the pier, they will be destroyed by the FIRST strike. I want someone to give a real explanation of why in a submarine a 36-ton rocket with such a firing range?
          1. During
            During 2 July 2013 12: 07
            +7
            Over 8000 km, these are already missiles with a reduced number of warheads (9300 km with one block), that is, ineffective ... not to mention the fact that they do not cover the entire territory and all bases (which is important), therefore they are "carried" Borei "and the strategic missile carrier is the most covert place of deployment of ICBMs because almost all the locations of land launchers / sites for our missiles are known and" are at gunpoint. " Well, cruise missiles are more of a "tactical" purpose than ICBMs.
            1. Ataman
              Ataman 2 July 2013 12: 44
              +1
              Mobile ICBMs move at night across tens of thousands of square meters. km The enemy has no opportunity to strike by Tridents on such areas, and for cruise missiles the approach time is measured in hours and there’s no reason to fly.
              From the memoirs of submariners, it follows that each of our SSBNs is visited by enemy boats and can track them (usually this is about 667 project boats). Accordingly, they can destroy.
              For a submarine to make sense, it must surpass the enemy in stealth and range of detection of enemy boats. In this regard, Ash has a much greater chance than Borey.
              1. During
                During 2 July 2013 12: 54
                +6
                And what about Poplars there is no tracking? Mobility is only an attempt to reduce the likelihood of defeat ...
                And even if they follow us, this does not mean that they constantly see us and keep them on target ... the experience with our submariners in the part of the quiet war is magnificent. And understand for yourself once and for all Ash it is far from Borey and vice versa, to compare their missile weapons is at least stupid. And to compare their visibility is also stupid, stealth is determined by a huge number of factors.
                1. Ataman
                  Ataman 2 July 2013 14: 58
                  -1
                  Stealth is determined by factors that can be briefly read even in Wikipedia, the article "Submarine detection". Why is it foolish to compare the stealth of submarines, if this is the main reason why they are made and this is the key reason when choosing possible weapons?
                  1. During
                    During 2 July 2013 15: 32
                    +4
                    and ok, study everything on Wikipedia ... only any experienced sailor will tell you that the key factor is the crew ... and you continue to explore the world on Wikipedia, only then don’t be surprised that it’s far from that, because this article is so superficial, you can’t tell ...
                    and the factors are not described in the article, but the methods of detection, but the factors that affect this very detection of darkness, I’m not a submariner, but when I tried to delve into it, I spent months studying the literature ... and then I can only say that general terms and concepts I understand, but everything else is physics and many of its subsections ...

                    How does stealth affect the choice of weapons? it is rather weapons that affect stealth, and not vice versa ... a boat-weapon complex is created, not a boat, and then a weapon for it ... and rather, weapons are created earlier. And about the "Borey", if in the construction of the first boats, units and sections from unfinished boats of the previous generation were used, this does not mean that the boat has the same characteristics in terms of low noise, plus new boats will be produced from scratch according to an improved design.
                    1. Ataman
                      Ataman 2 July 2013 16: 22
                      0
                      Since you spent months studying literature, tell me, what, from your point of view, is the undeniable advantage of Borea and Mace? As a person who has spent days studying literature, this is what interests me.
                      I realized that these benefits cannot be:
                      1) Stealth (too big)
                      2) Cheapness (land complexes are cheaper)
                      3) Firing range (ground systems further)
                      The only reasonable reason, in my opinion, is forcing the enemy to spend money on PLO. Defending in this case is much more expensive than attacking. But, if so, then Ash is more dangerous, because more difficult to detect, and much more universal, because maybe with submarines and fight with the AUG.
                      1. During
                        During 2 July 2013 17: 25
                        +3
                        the conclusions are not made correctly, do not you read what they write to you? there is no particular desire to rewrite everything that other interlocutors said before going to bed, and you happily scored on their comments ... you should have understood that some (I don’t want to describe everything in detail at night) the advantages of Borei-class SSBNs are:
                        1. Stealth ("too big" what? Why do you continue to insist that the Boreas are not secretive?) It is extremely difficult to track a boat in the vastness of the world's oceans and it is almost impossible to constantly track a boat in the ocean with an experienced crew. Moreover, so far the boats of the Shchuka-B type (some sections of which were used in the construction of the Boreyev) are considered one of the quietest boats in the world and are close to this indicator to the Siavulf. Although I repeat the hint of this circumstance on your part is erroneous ... even outwardly the boats and the technological solutions used in their construction are very different. There is no reason to say that Northwind is noisy.
                        2. Cheapness ... yes, the boat is most likely more expensive than 16 or 20 Topol-M complexes, but I doubt very much that one boat is more expensive than 16-20 silo launchers ... again a goal on the bar from your side.
                        3. Firing range ... well less so what? this shortcoming is more than compensated when the boat is at sea, not only can it come closer to the aggressor it can take an unexpected position for means of intercepting the enemy, and even with sufficient proximity to the borders, the flight time is greatly reduced and this can lead to additional losses of strategic forces the enemy.
                        You yourself see how your assumptions turned in the opposite direction, and this I was only based on your arguments without resorting to mine. Some of my arguments have already been given to you, some by comrades in the forum, if you want to understand, re-read and understand, if you rested, then good luck with such logic will not deserve respect.

                        Well, on account of "Ash" ... I don't understand why you constantly drag him to "Borey"? These are different ships for different purposes, "Ash" if you want a tactical boat, it cannot perform the functions of a strategist, which is "Borey" and vice versa. It's not about that at all, it's generally about something else, in other words. And what I argue, judge for yourself you question the generally accepted practice ... ridiculous.
                      2. Ataman
                        Ataman 2 July 2013 21: 22
                        +2
                        I think that the correct answer will surprise you.
                        First, let's look at the most common Soviet SSBN 667BDR "Kalmar". Features:
                        1) A large displacement with not so many rockets, but a large stock of buoyancy of 6500 tons, in contrast to 2000 for Ohio.
                        2) High "hump" with missiles and large hatches of the mines opening outward (and not towards the center).
                        Everything has been done in order to break thick ice and launch.
                        Secondly, ice fields hide the wake track, which for large nuclear submarines can be traced from the satellite, even when moving at great depths.
                        Thirdly, the ice cap of the Arctic Ocean is very noisy (constant friction of ice, the sound of water in the wormwood). This hides even a noisy boat. That is why, almost all SSBNs are concentrated in the Northern Fleet.
                        You studied literature poorly. And there are no fresh thoughts, namely, fresh thoughts and I wanted to hear. hi
                      3. jjj
                        jjj 3 July 2013 00: 26
                        +2
                        There are no BDRoks in the North. They are on TF
                      4. During
                        During 3 July 2013 05: 17
                        0
                        Do you even read what they write to you? where does your "correct answer" to what you wrote and what I wrote? What has buoyancy and secrecy to do with your message about the flaw in the Borey project itself?
                        Wanted to show off? it didn’t work, you look very funny. And he wasn’t surprised by anything, except that it turns out to break the ice with hatches ...

                        From now on, you would read what they write to you, but the fact that it’s not a post is a goal in the post, it’s a pity the time spent on you.
                      5. Ataman
                        Ataman 3 July 2013 20: 34
                        -1
                        Why are you repeating yourself and getting angry? And if you don’t know anything about the topic, then why are you entering into a dialogue? I would discuss goals in the bar on football sites and not waste my time.
                        And I just provoked a technical discussion, otherwise there would again be another chanting of patriotic sonnets. As a result, there is something to read below.
                      6. During
                        During 4 July 2013 10: 45
                        +1
                        in fact, here you rather took and read the information somewhere and decided to insert it, and not in a wrong way (in fact, which means the term "goal in the post"), but it seems to you that it will not reach you either ... but on the topic everything is said, and I directly refuted your own statements. Your allegations were refuted by others, so I am calm about my knowledge, you have not said anything new except stupidity ... I have never heard about the inexpediency of the Northwind project. And you need to provoke a discussion with the right questions, and not stupid ad-libbing.
                  2. dustycat
                    dustycat 3 July 2013 12: 51
                    0
                    Is it weak to compare the height of the Ohio waterline and Pike B?
                    Ohio has no less buoyancy margin because it is also designed for the Arctic theater of operations.
                  3. During
                    During 3 July 2013 12: 56
                    0
                    Why did you write this to me?
          2. jjj
            jjj 3 July 2013 00: 17
            +2
            Well, don't be so simple-minded. How Project 955 was designed is a separate story with elements of a detective story and an adventure novel. It's just that Ave 971 is the brainchild of Malachite, and Ave 955 is Rubin. One should not think that in 55 or 42, there were simply pre-welded sections of compartments and they were "thriftily" put into action. And if understanding people talk about Prospect 955 with approval, then it just needs to be taken for granted. Well, what's there and how - not everyone is supposed to know
        2. Misantrop
          Misantrop 2 July 2013 15: 47
          11
          Quote: Ataman
          Stealth is determined by factors that can be read briefly even on Wikipedia.

          Take the risk of lying under the knife of a self-taught surgeon if he undertakes to do an appendectomy operation on Wikipedia? what
          1. Ataman
            Ataman 2 July 2013 16: 24
            -1
            Judging by the profile picture, you are at least interested in submarines. And from your point of view, what is the advantage of Borea and Mace over other types of nuclear weapons?
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 2 July 2013 19: 47
              +7
              Quote: Ataman
              advantage of Borea and Mace over other types of nuclear weapons?

              Specifically, I won't say anything about Borey and Bulava, they appeared after my retirement. But the combat capabilities, for example, of one ship 667 BDRM project sounded as follows (in 1986): "the destruction of 1/3 of the US combat potential, taking into account combat resistance." If now these opportunities have decreased, it is not too much. Especially if it will be covered by modern tactical nuclear submarines before the salvo. And the ship 667A could easily sweep away from the geographical map of the planet of the British Isles, having spent 8 missiles on it out of 16 that it had. even if, after an attack from the West, at least a couple of strategic cruisers survive, they will be able to strike back at a level that is simply catastrophic for the aggressor. Well, also, since ballistic warheads attack from above (albeit at an angle), in order to counter them, they must be completely destroyed. Cannot be deflected off course by a close explosion (like a cruise missile or bomber)
            2. Windbreak
              Windbreak 3 July 2013 00: 03
              0
              Quote: Misantrop
              And the boat 667A could well have swiped away the British Isles from the geographic map of the planet, having spent 8 of its 16 missiles.
              8 P-27 with a megaton warhead will erase the UK with an area of ​​243000 km²?
            3. old man54
              old man54 3 July 2013 14: 30
              0
              Quote: Burel
              8 P-27 with a megaton warhead will erase the UK with an area of ​​243000 km²?

              to be more precise, since you insist they will turn it into a lifeless radioactive desert! You probably forgot that this is not just a P-27, with a split head part!
            4. Windbreak
              Windbreak 3 July 2013 15: 56
              0
              Do you overestimate the area of ​​destruction of nuclear weapons. Do you think that in the Moscow Region with an area of ​​44 km379 one Trident-2 is enough?
    3. lelikas
      lelikas 2 July 2013 16: 40
      +4
      Quote: Misantrop
      Take the risk of lying under the knife of a self-taught surgeon if he undertakes to do an appendectomy operation on Wikipedia?

      But what if laughing
    4. old man54
      old man54 2 July 2013 17: 59
      0
      Quote: Misantrop
      Take the risk of lying under the knife of a self-taught surgeon if he undertakes to do an appendectomy operation on Wikipedia?

      5 +++ laughing
    5. ded10041948
      ded10041948 2 July 2013 20: 14
      +2
      Especially if there are typos in the text on which he studied!
    6. postman
      postman 3 July 2013 02: 12
      0
      Quote: Misantrop
      if he undertakes on wikipedia an appendectomy operation to do?

      very powerful argument ... + (bold)
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 3 July 2013 02: 20
        0
        Quote: Postman
        very powerful argument ...
        5 s +, but much more, because the Misanthrope-man from the plow, tobish from the Boat.
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 2 July 2013 13: 17
    +2
    The answer seems to be clear - the boat should be in the most protected place, and where it is — under the ice or somewhere in the oceans — the decision is not always unambiguous and must get the enemy out of any place.
    As for me - it would be better if they were launched into Lake Baikal, another inland, but a large body of water. Of course, this is not real, but perhaps such a solution was worked out. Clearly not for Sharks and traditional nuclear submarines.
    1. postman
      postman 2 July 2013 13: 49
      +3
      Quote: sevtrash
      The answer seems to be clear

      The answer is in the unpredictability of the launch position (stealth) and flight time
      Quote: sevtrash
      - it would be better if they were launched into Lake Baikal,

      and what's the point then? Easier (as was done) in the taiga.
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 2 July 2013 14: 24
        0
        mobility
        1. postman
          postman 2 July 2013 14: 33
          +1
          Quote: sevtrash
          mobility

          well it's start position unpredictabilityin other words ..
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 2 July 2013 15: 23
            0
            If you find fault with words, it’s not always, the mobile version is mobile, but patency is limited, the visualization of the complex is possible, accompaniment to some extent too.
            From this point of view, nuclear submarines are less predictable if they are not accompanied by American nuclear submarines, which, as I understand it, is almost unbelievable.
            1. old man54
              old man54 2 July 2013 18: 31
              0
              Quote: sevtrash
              the mobile version is mobile, but patency is limited, visualization of the complex is possible, tracking to some extent too.

              you will probably be surprised, but the amers have satellite systems with which they track our nuclear submarines in the world’s oceans, and primarily visually track them, and even at sufficiently large depths. like this ... and you're talking about tracking ground systems verb.
              1. Cat
                Cat 2 July 2013 18: 44
                +5
                Quote: old man54
                Quote: sevtrash
                the mobile version is mobile, but patency is limited, visualization of the complex is possible, tracking to some extent too.

                you will probably be surprised, but the amers have satellite systems with which they track our nuclear submarines in the world’s oceans, and primarily visually track them, and even at sufficiently large depths. like this ... and you're talking about tracking ground systems verb.

                And that is why the amers hate the "Shark" so much - the boat is tailored for action under the ice (the thickness of the breaking ice depends on the buoyancy), neither satellites nor aircraft can detect the boat under the ice - only another nuclear submarine can do it. And the American submariners, according to rumors, hate to get under the hood.
              2. sevtrash
                sevtrash 2 July 2013 19: 55
                +1
                Quote: old man54
                ... and you are talking about tracking ground systems.

                Well, if you read it carefully, I "spoke" not only about mobile systems, but also about the nuclear submarine, and I considered the lack of support by the Americans incredible.

                Quote: old man54
                First of all, they are visually tracked, even at sufficiently large deep ones.

                So that they can track from a satellite visually at great depths? Really surprised and did not read. Source do not tell me?
              3. Cat
                Cat 2 July 2013 20: 33
                +3
                Quote: sevtrash
                So that they can track from a satellite visually at great depths? Really surprised and did not read. Source do not tell me?

                once upon a time came across an article on this subject, I don’t remember exactly where ...
                The satellite does not see the boat itself - it sees its trace. Since even at low speed and tricky low-speed propellers, there is a wake stream in any case, plus turbulence from the flow around the body, rudders, etc. All this balamut is preserved for a rather long time after the passage of the boat, if there is certain equipment it can really be detected and sent to the area to repair anti-submarine.
                On the other hand, there is a bunch of conventions due to the hydrography of a particular area, such as the presence of currents or the depth of a thermocline, plus active navigation or its absence, and many other marine cleverness - on which the probability of finding a boat depends, and the depth at which it can be done. Accordingly, submariners, being not stupid people (they do not take others there)), try to take into account all these nuances when choosing a route and a mode of movement, in short, they strenuously create inconveniences for "sworn friends" =)
              4. sevtrash
                sevtrash 2 July 2013 20: 59
                0
                By quote old man 54
                Quote: Cat
                primarily visually tracked, and even at sufficiently large deep

                we are talking about an independent self-sufficient complex for detecting submarines, rather than periodically identifying signs of submarines with the subsequent inclusion of other detection tools.
                About this, visual and from the satellite, did not read and did not even hear.
              5. Cat
                Cat 2 July 2013 21: 58
                0
                Quote: sevtrash
                we are talking about an independent self-sufficient complex for detecting submarines, rather than periodically identifying signs of submarines with the subsequent inclusion of other detection tools.

                What does it mean - a self-sufficient complex? Like, should a satellite be able to not only detect a submarine, but also drown it on its own?
                A good example: on a hunting boat there is a noise finder and a sonar. The noise finder operates in a passive mode, but the accuracy of the target coordinates obtained with its help is insufficient to launch an attack. Sonar - works in active mode, gives the desired accuracy, but only its work will be fixed by the target long before the HACK operator sees the backlight on its screen. And either escapes or attacks first.
                So that this does not happen, it is done this way: search in the passive mode, reaching the firing distance, an impulse in the active one for refining coordinates - from the volley immediately.
                And now, the question is: what, from your point of view, is a self-sufficient system - a noise finder, or a sonar?
              6. sevtrash
                sevtrash 2 July 2013 22: 38
                0
                Quote: Cat
                What does it mean - a self-sufficient complex? Like, should a satellite be able to not only detect a submarine, but also drown it on its own?

                It seems to me that the phrase "self-sufficient submarine detection complex" clearly indicates the detection, not the sinking of the submarine.

                And "independent, self-sufficient" means detection with a high degree of probability.

                It seems to me that it is clear to you yourself, without further explanation, that I wanted to say.
              7. Cat
                Cat 2 July 2013 23: 36
                +1
                Quote: sevtrash
                It seems to me that the phrase "self-sufficient submarine detection complex" clearly indicates the detection, not the sinking of the submarine.

                I gave you an example of two different complexes with which you can detect submarines. It is to detect - not to destroy. But you never said which one is self-sufficient.
                And if both complexes do not belong to a hunter boat, but to which thread is a strategist? Which is unlikely to become engaged in drowning the enemy personally, but the BOD can easily aim at the target - how in this case to be self-sufficient?
              8. sevtrash
                sevtrash 3 July 2013 00: 10
                0
                It was actually about the possibility of visually detecting a submarine from a satellite at great depths with high probability. What is sonar here?
                Let's repeat once again - by the term "self-sufficient" I meant the detection of submarines with a high probability of the very same virtual optical system. From the satellite. At great depths. All.
                And here is passive-active sonar?
              9. Cat
                Cat 3 July 2013 00: 19
                +1
                Quote: sevtrash
                It was actually about the possibility of visually detecting a submarine from a satellite at great depths with high probability. What is sonar here?
                Let's repeat once again - by the term "self-sufficient" I meant the detection of submarines with a high probability of the very same virtual optical system. From the satellite. At great depths. All.
                And here is passive-active sonar?

                depth of 100 m (standard for US submarines) - is it a lot or a little? The probability is from 0 to 100% (depending on the hydrography of a particular area, the mode in which the nuclear submarine is moving, weather conditions, etc.) - is this a lot or a little?

                And about active-passive sonar - this means that self-sufficient systems do not exist. And if they do, they are characterized by extremely low efficiency. Just as there are no self-sufficient ships.
              10. sevtrash
                sevtrash 3 July 2013 00: 33
                0
                For you, this term "self-sufficient" turned out to be indigestible. Well, I have already explained it in relation to the topic - "detection with a high degree of probability."
              11. Cat
                Cat 3 July 2013 00: 51
                +1
                Quote: sevtrash
                For you, this term "self-sufficient" turned out to be indigestible. Well, I have already explained it in relation to the topic - "detection with a high degree of probability."

                in some cases, even 1% is a very high degree of probability.
                And if you add this 1% to those% that give other systems - in general it will work out well.
          2. postman
            postman 3 July 2013 02: 36
            +3
            Quote: sevtrash
            It was actually about the possibility of visually detecting a submarine from a satellite at great depths with a high probability


            It is technically possible:
            Non Acoustic Submarine Detection Methods
            - detector of magnetic anomalies (- a lot of parasitic "noise" at high latitudes ... and the compass does not work well) by local disturbances of the Earth's magnetic field
            Optical in reflection or absorption of green-blue light (laser or part of the spectrum of the sun / moon) by the hull of the boat.
            -heat: submarine with a reactor with a capacity of 19 0 MW, gives
            seawater 45 mln.cal / s at a speed of 5 knots, this dissipated heat increases the temperature of the water directly behind the submarine less
            less than 0,2 ° C. Due to the mixing of a warm stream with surrounding water
            this temperature difference decreases rapidly. At a distance of 1km per
            Submarines moving from 5k speed, it is only 0,01 ° C
            -wave: on the surface of the ocean ALWAYS (now) have surfactants (oil, etc.) - Waves occur when
            any forced displacement of the water volume up or
            down in the thermal wedge, particularly when collapsing
            turbulent trail of a submarine.
            - on "Bernoulli's hump"
            - using a satellite micro-wave radar with synthesized aperture (Image taken from the Seasat satellite launched in 1978 - internal waves at a depth of many meters)

            Well, and so on.

            ===== for "non-satellite" =
            -chemical: Paint particles washed off the hull of the boat, the smallest quantities of radioactive substances that are released into the water through the cooling system of the reactors, and other “emissions” form a distinct chemical trace, unmasking the submarine
          3. Cat
            Cat 3 July 2013 03: 10
            +2
            Quote: Postman
            Non Acoustic Submarine Detection Methods
            .
            .

            You don’t understand ... and it didn’t reach me the first time what
            The point is: the point is the possibility of detecting reaching the depths of the nuclear powered submarines using optical systems, moreover, with the condition that any boat be detected anywhere in the world’s oceans and at any arbitrary time period.
            And if translated from abstruse into Russian - Mr. sevtrash He will believe in the validity of satellite search for nuclear submarines only when he can open a Google-map thread and in real time look at submarines crawling in the depths. =)))
          4. postman
            postman 3 July 2013 04: 21
            0
            Quote: Cat
            some Google-map thread and in real time pezz on submarines stalking in the depths. =)))

            The picture taken from the Seasat satellite, launched in 1978, is internal waves at a depth of many meters, its digital processing of the fingerboard has been shot, and can be found in Google.
            on-line there is no course .... yet smile
            Although a neighbor in the country and what he does there, you can already watch not through the fence, but through Google or similar
            Planet Earth - live broadcast from the ISS satellite
            http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html#.UdNuG_mnYsI
            http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream
            http://media.utema.ru/earth-online/

            Surely, a couple of years ago, you could not even imagine that you could just so easily watch the broadcast of the Earth online from a satellite! And today, anyone who has access to the Internet can watch planet Earth from outer space online. Thanks to experts from NASA who provide live online broadcasts from the satellites of our planet, you and I can enjoy this amazing sight.
          5. sevtrash
            sevtrash 3 July 2013 09: 52
            0
            It is optical, from satellite, at great depths.
            Translate too freely. In my opinion, the doubts are quite justified, enough has been said about them above. Moreover, the very source of information about the existence of such a system - old man 54 - relied, in fact, on rumors.
  • old man54
    old man54 2 July 2013 22: 31
    +1
    Quote: sevtrash
    About this, visual and from the satellite, did not read and did not even hear.

    we often don’t know much and don’t hear it, and now what? bully Himself was dumbfounded, at one time! The fact that the submarine at a depth of (not large, approximately reproscopic, +/-) is visible from the air was accidentally discovered during the Second World War, it seems in the Baltic. And just by the eyes of an airplane pilot, in the afternoon and in sunny weather. Detection depended on the transparency of the sea and the amount of sunlight. Of course, you can’t find a boat at much greater depths, but with the help of cricket-sensitive equipment and a powerful computer, you can see faint shadows in the depths of the sea, their uncharacteristic and clear dynamics, + indistinguishable wake trace, + change and dynamics of the thermal background in this place + analysis a high-speed computer conducting this analysis gives high accuracy of finding nuclear submarines at depth. This system is complex, complex, very similar to a system for observing far space, the principles are almost the same. And if you also take into account that our submarines during patrols as a rule did not go below 80 meters, then ...
  • MakSim51ru
    MakSim51ru 5 July 2013 16: 34
    0
    It seems to be a thermal trace of atomic dpls. Here it is really visible from satellites, especially in the polar latitudes.
  • Misantrop
    Misantrop 5 July 2013 16: 44
    0
    Quote: MakSim51ru
    Here it is really visible from satellites, especially in the polar latitudes.

    Sometimes it is actually viewed. But if everything was so simple and straightforward, then scientists would not argue about the Gulf Stream whether it stops or not. Already from it a trace is somewhat larger than from the nuclear submarines, they would have looked from the satellite, problems ... wink
  • MakSim51ru
    MakSim51ru 5 July 2013 18: 04
    0
    Quote: Misantrop
    scientists would not argue about the Gulf Stream, whether it stops or not. Already from it, the trace is somewhat larger than from the nuclear submarines, they would have looked from the satellite, problems ... wink


    Uh, no. Problems with Golf due to too short periods of observation for him - less than 100 years. Whether systematic decrease in temperature and current velocity or cyclical. And then what is the cycle, and how will the temperature and so on and so forth ....
  • old man54
    old man54 2 July 2013 21: 49
    +1
    Quote: sevtrash
    So that they can track from a satellite visually at great depths? Really surprised and did not read. Source do not tell me?

    I will not prompt! And I doubt that you will find something detailed on the net. The information is oral, but from a very trusted person, the reliability of which I have no doubt. He is an employee of one of the closed institutes (research institutes), where he has been working all his life, and where he is developing new principles, theories and projects of various courts, primarily military, and especially submarines. Questions of low noise, invisibility, a fundamentally different mover (thermal cavity) and so on. Accordingly, the most modern systems and methods of combating submarines on the other side of the barricade will be found there, if not in the first place, then at least in the second, in order to start thinking how to counteract them.
    Also, from satellites and planes, NATO uses sensitive instruments to analyze the change in the thermal field of the sea depths, and based on the dynamics of these changes, they determine the track (course) left by the nuclear submarines at depth. Therefore, the ice shell of the Arctic Ocean and the problem for amers, still!
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 2 July 2013 22: 55
    0
    The fact that with clear water you can see the submarine is understandable, but not shallow. I am saying that I did not hear, did not read such an option for detecting nuclear submarines, as you said visually from a satellite at great depths.
    In distilled water, Secchi's disk disappears at 80 m, but they look at this disk there, that is, its location is known, they do not take their eyes off it.
    To detect nuclear submarines underwater, it is necessary to scan the surface of the ocean, imagine the amount of information that needs to be received, skipped, analyzed starting from the satellite, you need to evaluate the required quality of the equipment, how many satellites you need to hang, analyze the probability of detection in different oceans and seas, and ultimately cost-effectiveness.
    In general - it is doubtful. Even if it is possible at great depths (and which, by the way, did you mean?), It seems expensive even for Americans.
    They seem to put their own on the tail of each boat, and soon, maybe now, they will put a small underwater drone on their tail, and not one, and with some kind of weapon.
  • Cat
    Cat 2 July 2013 23: 24
    +3
    Quote: sevtrash
    To detect nuclear submarines underwater, it is necessary to scan the surface of the ocean, imagine the amount of information that needs to be received, skipped, analyzed starting from the satellite, you need to evaluate the required quality of the equipment, how many satellites you need to hang, analyze the probability of detection in different oceans and seas, and ultimately cost-effectiveness.

    and you think, in honor of what are these underwater, and surface ships constantly creep around the globe, back and forth and one after another? There is nowhere to put fuel and motor resources? Schazz. They watch the enemy and the sea. And they are observing - this does not mean at all that they stupidly stare through binoculars at enemy ships and boats. They write in a special secret journal - who, where, how often, at what speeds and at what depths creeps. They write who and how is making noise - in different modes, at different speeds and distances. If no one is noisy, they write the background, so that in case of a change, they are immediately on their guard. Well, there’s a lot of stuff there. And upon arrival at the base - all these notes are summarized, thoughtfully analyzed with the help of cunning programs and techniques, looking for patterns (or lack thereof). And draw conclusions. Then, if something happens, in the aggregate of seemingly small and minor changes, we immediately understand: who, where and for what purpose is headed, and how to deal with it.
    Again: in every self-respecting navy there is a certain number of hydrographic vessels, stuffed with all sorts of equipment - which are also constantly measuring somewhere somewhere, looking out for, eavesdropping and recording. Why are they doing all this? And all the same, in case "if suddenly something"
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 2 July 2013 23: 59
    0
    This is a system of visual detection from a satellite, I just analyze that if there really is a probability of such a detection, then we still need to create a system that includes equipment on the satellite that will scan the surface, determine the scanning algorithm, calculate the area, etc.
    And you tell me about the boats. Tell us again that each submarine is characterized by its own, individual set of noises that Americans have long used to detect them. This is already known. And how long.
  • old man54
    old man54 2 July 2013 23: 57
    +2
    Quote: sevtrash
    The fact that with clear water you can see the submarine is understandable, but not shallow.

    You are inattentively reading what is written, I'm sorry!
    To detect nuclear submarines underwater, you need to scan the surface of the ocean, imagine the amount of information that you need to receive, skip, analyze starting from the satellite

    imagine! Well, I did not write that the control is absolute, but they have such an opportunity. Why would they, for example, scan the southern part of the Atlantic, the probability of our submarines appearing there is minimal, as well as the south of the Indian Ocean and so on. They, apparently, scan the most likely patrol areas, exits from the naval base, etc.
    They kind of put their own on the tail of each boat,

    planted, but if the contact is lost, or something else, then how to get the PM? They need detection guarantees, as you can’t get it !? :(

    There is information that in 2000, using just such a satellite system, information from which was transmitted to a special NK for tracking and control center in the Barents Sea, the Dosian nuclear submarines "Toledo" and "Memphis" were directed to our nuclear submarine "Kursk" ...
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 3 July 2013 00: 24
    0
    I just expressed doubt about the existence of such a system, namely a system and higher, like I said why. This is a forum to discuss, and not silently swallow information.
    Even if it’s possible to visualize submarines from a satellite at great depths, imagine how many satellites you need to hang, at what height, how much they will cost, how much the entire system, development of optics will cost, develop a detection algorithm depending on the state of water, waves, cloud cover, time of year etc. etc. Cloudiness is especially interesting. And also evaluate the cost-effectiveness.
    So that is doubtful.
  • Cat
    Cat 3 July 2013 00: 38
    +2
    Quote: sevtrash
    Even if it’s possible to visualize submarines from a satellite at great depths, imagine how many satellites you need to hang, at what height, how much they will cost, how much the entire system, development of optics will cost, develop a detection algorithm depending on the state of water, waves, cloud cover, time of year etc. etc. Cloudiness is especially interesting. And also evaluate the cost-effectiveness.

    satellites are, of course, expensive. But if you estimate the cost of a single strategist who wasn’t discovered at the right time with his missiles, then even the most sophisticated satellite will seem like a cheap Christmas tree toy.

    And in terms of cost / efficiency, thermonuclear munitions, megatons of commercials of 800 will definitely come first. We detonate in any place you like - the ball flies from orbit, and all the enemies of the aircraft are destroyed. With a guarantee =)
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 3 July 2013 10: 17
    0
    Not serious
  • stjrm
    stjrm 7 July 2013 13: 14
    0
    Why should they be guided? "Maryata" constantly rubs at the exit from the Kola, in the areas of combat training at least 2 submarines of the eventual enemy, and with such exercises, which were and even more could have been.
    Well, for that matter, the contact on the submarine is usually transmitted either by aviation or by the KPUG.
  • Misantrop
    Misantrop 2 July 2013 21: 46
    +2
    Quote: old man54
    visually tracked, even at sufficiently large depths.

    It is tracked at depths less than 100 m, sometimes even less (just those on which the US nuclear submarines prefer to go). But Russian boats have long been sailing at depths of about 200 m (for this reason, nobody is interested in putting escorts on their tail)
  • stjrm
    stjrm 7 July 2013 12: 53
    0
    Visually, from the same space, one can detect submarines in an underwater position at depths of up to 40 meters. Provided the depth of the place is 300 meters, calm sea and bright soil ..... Everything else is a fairy tale .....
    And if you knew the tactics performed when surfacing under the periscope to a communication session and at least the approximate areas of the BS of our strategists, then you would not tell us tales here.
    Well, that’s what I think.
  • old man54
    old man54 2 July 2013 17: 55
    +1
    Quote: Ataman
    No one will give boats a RESPONSE volley from the pier, they will be destroyed by the FIRST strike.

    Well, why doesn’t it give it? :) It all depends on the missile defense system (early warning of the launch of an enemy’s ICBM) and on the combat readiness of the boat itself and the crew’s preparedness. Time will probably be 20 mines, maybe more.
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 3 July 2013 13: 04
      0
      According to Baikonur, the flight time of the Tomahawks, after notification, from the Indian Ocean 12 minutes.
      Not from the moment of launch, but from the moment of crossing the border.
      What can the Ohio nuclear submarine in the non-nuclear version - Libya.
      1. old man54
        old man54 3 July 2013 14: 49
        0
        Quote: dustycat
        According to Baikonur, the flight time of the Tomahawks, after notification, from the Indian Ocean 12 minutes.
        Not from the moment of launch, but from the moment of crossing the border.

        I wrote about missile defense, and this is the control and counteraction of ICBMs! If the system is still functioning, then their start is detected in climb mode over the USA, for example (for mine installations). Tomogawk is a Kyrgyz Republic with a minimal flight profile and its detection is appropriate! In addition, missile defense only detects ballistic (vertically up) launches.
        So you need to develop a satellite system to detect the launch and flight of the Kyrgyz Republic in the direction of Russia!
  • ded10041948
    ded10041948 2 July 2013 20: 08
    0
    To fly where necessary and when necessary. Not one country will launch all missiles in one gulp. This is both technically unrealistic and in terms of warfare irrational. But the answer must be applied immediately and not after 5 hours (until the subsonic CR reaches the target). Well, and a whole bunch of reasons.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 2 July 2013 20: 13
      +3
      Quote: ded10041948
      This is technically unrealistic.

      Search YouTube for "Operation Behemoth 2". True, so far no one has managed to repeat SUCH. Well, as for rationality, the more warheads with their imitators go at the same time, the greater the guarantee that the missile defense system of the attacked will drown for false purposes
  • Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 2 July 2013 23: 58
    0
    Everything is a little easier.
    The greater the distance the projectile is flying, the greater the likelihood that it will be calculated and knocked down. those. we get that the closer we bring the projectile, the less it will have to fly and, as a result, the less chance of interception. But at the same time, there is a chance of detection when the firing point is still far away, but it is necessary to shoot otherwise they will not be allowed to shoot at all. it is precisely then that the range reserve plays its role.
  • postman
    postman 2 July 2013 13: 09
    +3
    Quote: Ataman
    I never understood if the Bulava hits a potential enemy right from the pier

    1. There is no exact (open) data
    2. If it does "get", then with a minimum throw weight
    3. Reduced active area, flat trajectory, the number of warheads will reduce the maximum range, so that you have to bullet from the Atlantic
    4. If the launch site (pier) is known, then it’s easy to prepare for the interception (Bude, for example, or the destroyer pro)
    5. The positioning of a likely adversary may vary.
    6. effective time
    well and so on
    Quote: Ataman
    The mace has excess range,

    Nonsense, not enough for the required casting mass and taking into account the opposition
    Quote: Ataman
    Is it the latest Russian X-102 missile with

    1. the latest, based on the X-555
    2. subsonic and this is a big difference in flight time compared to that de mace
    3. The X-555 had 3500-2000km, with a launch altitude of 200-12000m and a SPEED of a carrier of 540-1050 km / h, how can one reach 10 km with an actual starting (+ 5000%) from under water, with an actually stationary carrier? Well, yes, someone got it (in the press) and 10 km
    Quote: Ataman
    Hybrid installation applied on Ash

    eeeee ... and what is the "hybridity" then?
    2-row electric motors PG-160 with a capacity of 410 hp and a more powerful electric motor of low speed? much will it pass on them?
    1. Ataman
      Ataman 2 July 2013 16: 30
      +1
      I read about the hybrid installation at http://paralay.com/, its advantages are described there, I have not seen more detailed data.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 2 July 2013 23: 17
        +3
        Quote: Ataman
        I read about the hybrid installation at http://paralay.com/. Its advantages are described there.
        It is good for boats of small displacement. Where there are no high speeds and large masses. And for the nuclear submarines with ICBMs, these gains turn into disadvantages. For the movement of such masses in such moves, powerful generators, large currents and large motors are needed. And these are systems of forced cooling of mechanisms and hefty power cables with crazy working currents. Even if we already have a pump with a working current of 200 A at 380 V, the voltage was not considered particularly large (starting current of 800 A). Only in my compartment there were 10 of them. And for the electric propulsion of such a ship, currents are needed an order of magnitude more. Accordingly, problems with switching, when connecting / disconnecting such a mechanism, there is an arc on which a medium-sized pig can be fried. So, high-speed machines (which work with such a roar ...) are required sad
        1. postman
          postman 2 July 2013 23: 54
          0
          Quote: Misantrop
          Only in my compartment there were 10 of them. And for the electric propulsion of such a ship, currents are needed an order of magnitude more.

          And for fun, how much power was the battery?
          Well, their weight, if there is data and they are open
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 3 July 2013 09: 46
            +1
            The battery is not my job. I remember that we had a so-called "small" battery. 224 elements. Full-time the discharge mode at a voltage of 310 V was 24 hours with a current of 10 A. It provided movement under the rowing electric motors during the day and the introduction of one side of the nuclear power plant with simultaneous withdrawal and cooling of the second side. In addition, there were two standby diesel engines DG-000 (460 kW each) with M-460 and 820 tons diesel engines
      2. postman
        postman 2 July 2013 23: 52
        0
        Quote: Ataman
        About hybrid installation

        in my opinion they were slightly mistaken.
        Ohio class SSBN / SSGN
        In auxiliary power unit diesel generator included power 1400 kW and backup propeller motor capacity of 325 liters. with. company "Magnatek". The backup electric motor is used as a thruster drive during maneuvering and in the event of an accident in the main power plant. This device is located in the hull of the boat and extends if necessary./ well and so on

        It looks more like a "hybrid"
  • StolzSS
    StolzSS 2 July 2013 14: 29
    +3
    You will be surprised, but I discussed this issue with professionals in the country in a narrow circle .... They also think so, but with reservations. They want the ash-trees to have hydroacoustic complexes such that they could hear sneezes for 100 miles around ... well, all sorts of small and more lotions of specialized purely special purposes ... And the men really want what’s called to be near the potential enemy these boats with all these super buns .... well, you understand .... hi
    1. Ataman
      Ataman 2 July 2013 16: 39
      0
      Greetings to the expert. hi
      And did not discuss why Yasen has a central post in the first compartment? It seems the most suffering in a collision and is surrounded by torpedo tubes on all sides. Too dangerous. Why not placed in the third?
  • old man54
    old man54 2 July 2013 17: 32
    +2
    Quote: Ataman
    I never understood that if the Bulava gets a potential enemy right from the pier, then why are they generally loaded onto boats and rolled across the sea. The mace has excessive range, as no one will let you shoot straight from the pier. Only boats that are on alert and will not be detected by the enemy will be able to fire a response salvo after the first strike.

    ICBMs all over the world (who can afford it) are installed on submarines for that reason. that it is still very difficult to trace its location in the world's oceans! In contrast to mine-based land-based ICBMs and even from mobile launch complexes of the Topol type, whose deployment area can be assumed and the radius of their probable deployment can be outlined (they never leave too far from the RPM). This is the main advantage of boats, especially as a retaliatory strike or even a strike "from the other world" (when the whole country is already one big nuclear mushroom!). And long-range shooting is necessary in the event that it would carry the DB in their waters, where the access of the NK PLO of a potential enemy was ordered in peacetime. From the berth in the surface position, the shooting was developed so that the sudden start of a full-scale war of destruction with the use of nuclear weapons would not require the boat to go out to sea and go under water. and shoot straight as it is, because it takes at least 1 hour even for a working boat to go out to sea, and their bases will be attacked by enemy nuclear weapons in the first place (i.e., 15/20 minutes after starting)!
    Whether it is the newest Russian missile Kh-102 with a nuclear warhead and a launch range of up to 5500 km and the nuclear submarine pr. 855 "Yasen", which can carry 32 pieces.

    a cruise missile will not soon be compared in terms of the power of a nuclear charge with a ballistic one. With all its "cunning" configuration of flight to the target, it is not at all difficult to intercept it with modern air defense systems, especially considering its speed. But modern warheads of ICBMs at the final stage of the flight are unlikely to be intercepted. All modern conversations about successful tests and the creation of such interception systems both with us and our "partners" are just slyness. There is a chance of interception, but it is very small, and even in the case of the number of warheads within 10 pieces.
    At the same time, the displacement of the "Ash" is two times less than the "Borea", and, accordingly, the stealth is higher.

    I agree, but in part, because the wetted surface area and its roughness coefficient certainly mean a lot for the low noise of the submarine, but it is far from the main value in this parameter. There is also the operation of the pumps of the AEU circuits of the boat, the operation of the turbine, the mover itself sometimes makes a lot of noise, + the work of other mechanisms.
    It is on "Ash", starting from the second boat, that all the advanced developments in the field of stealth are implemented and the most advanced Russian GAS is installed.

    where is the most perfect gas? In our Navy or in general? Here on a series of articles was on the topic of our CEO, the principles of their work, the fundamental differences from Amer. Read.
    Thus, as a complete layman, I believe that small boats with real secured increased secrecy and armed with cruise missiles will be much more dangerous for the enemy than the mighty Borey

    small boats are potentially more difficult to detect, you are right here, I agree with you, but the Borey and Ash are the second fundamentally different boats, according to their intended purpose, tasks and, accordingly, according to their place in the Navy.
  • Old_kapitan
    Old_kapitan 2 July 2013 17: 38
    +2
    A hybrid installation is used on Ash trees, it can sail with the GTZA disabled.
    What are you talking about ?! Well, then I served on the coolest nuclear submarine! True, it is a bit old, project 667B. But the "hybrid installation" was already there - if necessary, we could use the winder (right in the compartment, even the standard was passed for the shutdown speed) to turn off the shaft line and the boat would turn into a diesel-electric submarine.
  • Ivan_Ivanov
    Ivan_Ivanov 2 July 2013 10: 10
    +3
    +5! Be sure to save one!

    I read somewhere that they want to do so.

    That's just the liberals will tear the throat against. Well, well, because it proves the greatness of our people and our country.

    And if they save it (I hope that it will be so), the descendants of modern liberalists - future miracle historians will prove that such a whopper could not only sink under water, but generally swim. As we are being told about the Tsar Cannon.
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 2 July 2013 13: 20
      +2
      If for example the maintenance of the Shark will cost the maintenance of several other boats, which, unlike the Shark, will have the main armament and will be able to go on duty - which is more beneficial for the state in terms of security. And given the non-Chinese budget?
      1. Semen Semyonitch
        Semen Semyonitch 2 July 2013 18: 31
        0
        Quote: sevtrash
        If for example the maintenance of the Shark will cost the maintenance of several other boats, which, unlike the Shark, will have the main armament and will be able to go on duty - which is more beneficial for the state in terms of security. And given the non-Chinese budget?

        Is the Chinese budget much larger than ours? Military, of course.
    2. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 2 July 2013 17: 45
      +4
      Be sure to save one!
      Sure! To remember that they could. And the liberals and their descendants ... let the mare go into the crack. Where is the place for them. IMHO.
  • cdrt
    cdrt 2 July 2013 13: 01
    0
    Well, it should cost like a diamond bridge and every hour of its operation will also be golden.
    Even like a tanker. And there is not much free space. She was called a water carrier for a reason.
    I think the cost of transporting fuel will simply not be competitive compared to a conventional ice reinforced tanker.
    So ... the giants are leaving ... they probably need a way there. New SSBNs are much smaller.
    1. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 2 July 2013 17: 42
      +1
      She was called a water carrier for a reason.
      Well, it was called a water carrier because of its large volume and its relatively low weight. Therefore, to dive had to take a lot of water. So in this regard, it’s okay: water is collected by gravity, the trophies are larger than the VVD on the ascent ...
  • Dimanrus86
    Dimanrus86 2 July 2013 14: 23
    +3
    One Shark will be left, K-208 Dmitry Donskoy (the first ship in the series) - it was converted into a test bench for a mace rocket and other promising weapons. The size of the boat is really amazing!
  • old man54
    old man54 2 July 2013 17: 02
    -1
    and why in this gadyushnik, where actually all decisions about the collapse of the country and the fleet are accepted - "Shark" ??? What would fagots take pictures on during gayporadas?: ((
    1. old man54
      old man54 2 July 2013 18: 18
      +3
      Quote: old man54
      and why in this gadyushnik, where actually all decisions about the collapse of the country and the fleet are accepted - "Shark" ??? What would fagots take pictures on during gayporadas?: ((

      for minus players: by "gadyushnik" I meant the Kremlin, where I proposed to send 941 projects "Mikhado". there are more worthy places in Russia for exhibiting it as a museum.
      1. Cat
        Cat 2 July 2013 18: 22
        +2
        Quote: old man54
        for minus players: by "gadyushnik" I meant the Kremlin, where I proposed to send 941 projects "Mikhado"

        he was proposing everything correctly. Send the "Shark" to the Kremlin, and then send the disguised Misanthrope - with the task to get into the reactor compartment and unscrew the counter nut. And in this way to solve a great many Russian problems =)
  • killganoff
    killganoff 2 July 2013 21: 28
    +5
    This is not the only problem here ... All our really great achievements are purposefully fucked up. Vivid examples: - "Buran" take an interest in its fate and what happened to other flight and test models; Research vessel "Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin" - what's wrong with it? but "Mir" (Salyut-8) is a unique orbital station. On March 23, 2001 (40 days before the 40th anniversary of the first manned space flight) it was flooded in the Pacific Ocean.
    a world river has been installed on it. - 23 experiments; The Soviet nuclear-powered icebreaker "Arktika" reached the North Pole for the first time in the history of navigation; The world's fastest serial Project 000 (K) submarines? And the list goes on and on ... We are forced to forget our history. And the main value of our Motherland is the people that will die out.
  • Van
    Van 2 July 2013 21: 52
    +1
    Quote: Mikhado
    At least one "Shark" - "Typhoon" must be preserved for History.
    It’s a pity that it’s impossible to drag it to the Kremlin - there would also be a Tsar Boat wink
    But in general - is it really impossible to find peaceful application, were they talking about an underwater tanker? Dark business ...


    Why trifles, rocket engines can be hooked onto it into space, and there it is possible to Mars ... lol
  • Severok
    Severok 5 July 2013 19: 48
    +2
    Peaceful use - easy! The service life of the reactors is extended, the armament is removed, and so on. military equipment and please! Come godfather to admire! Floating Power Station!
  • Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 8 July 2013 17: 10
    0
    I remember someone said "If we put this submarine on the red square next to the Tsar Cannon and Tsar Bell, then the wars in the world will end."
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 2 July 2013 08: 28
    +5
    Kuznetsov’s superstructure is three times larger than Nimitz’s
  • Wild_grey_wolf
    Wild_grey_wolf 2 July 2013 08: 46
    12
    very sorry for the sharks, so much work. . .
  • PROXOR
    PROXOR 2 July 2013 09: 37
    +2
    Sharks are certainly a pity, the entire Union built them and they are the property of the whole country. But still, size is a minus to invisibility. And the key factor in the success of the Submarine cruisers is precisely the noiselessness. One definitely needs to be preserved, for the story.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 2 July 2013 10: 54
      17
      On the other hand, our "partners" are very happy, the "Sharks" were an awl in the seat, their destruction, like the railway missile complex, the United States sought in the first place. "Shark", a unique boat designed for operations under the Arctic ice. The ice shell from above, the crackling of ice, plus the lowered noise level made this boat very difficult to detect, and its dimensions, in addition to its combat power, increased the autonomy and comfort of the crew. Only enemies and traitors (or not quite smart people) will find fault with this boat. I do not understand Oleg Kaptsov, is it his banter, or he is very sympathetic to the ideas of the State Department against us. The size of Russia is not embarrassing here, otherwise several small states are easier to manage? Why go to extremes, yes, a diesel-electric boat is smaller, cheaper, quieter, so what? The Amur project, with cruise missiles, may have very good prospects, but one does not interfere with the other. The dimensions of the supertankers are known to all, "Knock Nevis". for example, it has a displacement of 564 tons, with a length of 763 meters, a width of 458, 68 meters, this is justified by a decrease in the cost of oil transportation. The size of a full-fledged aircraft carrier is justified by using all the capabilities of aviation at sea. Or, do we only need to have coastal boats? Sorry if abruptly enough.
  • little man
    little man 2 July 2013 09: 56
    +2
    Thank you for the article. I liked it very much
  • Sergey13
    Sergey13 2 July 2013 10: 00
    +1
    Whatever you say, our designers are the best!
  • Tuzik
    Tuzik 2 July 2013 10: 05
    +1
    from sharks you can make an underwater landing ship)
    1. Semen Semyonitch
      Semen Semyonitch 2 July 2013 18: 38
      0
      Quote: Tuzik
      from sharks you can make an underwater landing ship)

      ..or oil from the shelf to extract, if instead of rockets in the mines, drilling rigs put ...
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 2 July 2013 10: 18
    +4
    Oleg! It should have been titled "Nuclear Submarines for Dummies!" ...
    PS: with regards to size, the civilian fleet has long surpassed the military, no aircraft carrier can be compared with supertankers or container carriers for which. I’ll never forget how the Hyundai supertanker passed near our steamboat, there’s nothing to even compare with, I was a microbe on a blade of grass that eats an elephant ...
    1. Mhpv
      Mhpv 2 July 2013 12: 13
      16
      We stood in Providence Bay in Chukotka in 91g not far from this "baby" and what happened to her?
      "The nuclear-powered lighter-carrier-container ship" Sevmorput "was built at the Kerch shipyard in 1988. They preferred not to talk about this ship as a secret weapon. In one voyage, the lighter carrier took on board so much cargo that food was enough for a whole year for the inhabitants of the Far North Decks and holds of the lighter carrier "Sevmorput" allow to take on board up to 74 containers and a special U-shaped loading and unloading crane, which moves along the ship's hull and places containers in two tiers. on the water through the aft of the vessel. Unloading of containers can also be done in motion, which was used in special cases. "

      The power plant of the Sevmorput lighter carrier allows an unlimited amount of time to sail, fulfilling its transport mission. The main nuclear installation produces steam that drives a turbine. The backup source of energy on a cargo ship is a diesel engine. The nuclear icebreaker is also equipped with three turbo-generators of 1700 kW each and five emergency generators that run on diesel fuel with a total power of 1400 kW. The vessel has an adjustable pitch propeller to prevent damage to the blades on large ice floes.

      Today this vessel, owned by Rosatom, is docked in Murmansk. “Our task is to revive it to life, so that it serves for the benefit of the Russian civilian fleet,” Suraev summed up.
  • Ivan79
    Ivan79 2 July 2013 10: 20
    +5
    What is there to sigh ... Sharks will cut them on pins and needles ... "Effective managers" will not put up with the fact that so much good is wasted ... sad
  • Misantrop
    Misantrop 2 July 2013 10: 32
    14
    The Americans, traditionally, put on high quality manufacturing of hull structures, equipment reliability and qualified personnel in the crew of submarines.
    Yeah. At the same time, "drip leaks through the structure of the Los Angeles-type nuclear submarine are not a malfunction" (c) what Fine? Water oozes through microcracks into the body and this is considered normal. repeat
    1. rolik
      rolik 2 July 2013 12: 45
      +5
      Quote: Misantrop
      Fine? Water oozes through microcracks into the body and this is considered normal.

      They have steel .... hygroscopic)))))
    2. rolik
      rolik 2 July 2013 21: 05
      +1
      Quote: Misantrop
      Water oozes through microcracks into the body and this is considered normal.

      They have such tolerances. And this is not an isolated example. Take "Black Bird" there, too, fuel flows through the cracks while the plane is on the ground. In flight, the body heats up and tightens the cracks.
  • ed65b
    ed65b 2 July 2013 10: 59
    +5
    I like the Shark. Even the mere thought that somewhere in the ocean at a depth such a fish lurked for sure forced to piss boiling water on a probable enemy. The size is certainly impressive. Is it interesting to swim such near Syria Israelis and Turks with Europe?
  • govoruha-otrok
    govoruha-otrok 2 July 2013 11: 21
    -1
    !
    "Shark" and one of the family of SSBNs 677 "667, probably? Who is Koptsov?"
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 2 July 2013 14: 13
      0
      Quote: govoruha-otrok
      "Shark" and one of the SSBN family 677 "667, probably?

      One of 667, and specifically 667 BDR
  • Mhpv
    Mhpv 2 July 2013 11: 34
    +4
    Our "Sharks" were built of titanium, and you know that lightweight and durable metal (who remembers, there was a fashion for heels made of titanium - eternal and sparks could be made). The Americans themselves said that it was easier for them to build the same boats from gold, how much titanium is more expensive for them, so they relied on a solid single body. Why the Americans do not cut their Ohio, moreover, they are now even more proud of them, because they managed to destroy the Shark Typhoons with our own hands, again I recommend watch Discovery films "Shark Submarines of Steel".
    In my understanding, multifunctionality is like in "The Tale of the Priest and His Worker Balda":
    "" I need an employee:
    Cook, groom and carpenter.
    And where can I find this
    A minister not too expensive? ”
    After all, MBT is still a tank and everything else is created on its basis, so the "Akula" boats are primarily an underwater mobile launch pad, and to destroy any AUG and submarines of a potential enemy, boats of the "Pike" type are created.
    And of course, not an unimportant factor is the technical equipment of the boats. There has already been an article that our boats are "deaf" and there is no single database of NATO submarine noise, like the Americans have the entire base of our submarines. It turns out that most of the collisions between our submarines and American for the fact that they provoked our boats in all kinds of modes, so they sometimes flirted.
    My opinion boats of the project "Shark" have the right to exist only in the new version, because thanks to EBNu "Sharks" are declassified to the last screw.
    Article plus-Oleg always puts everything on the shelves, in my opinion intelligibly.
    1. postman
      postman 2 July 2013 14: 31
      +1
      Quote: mhpv
      Our "Sharks" were built of titanium, and you know that lightweight and durable metal (who remembers, there was a fashion for heels made of titanium - eternal and sparks could be made). The Americans themselves said that it was easier for them to build the same boats from

      1. Titanium (alloys) was not used for a good life. HY-80/100 steel parameters are impressive
      Deepsea Challenger (DCV 1) reached the Challenger Abyss.

      Pilot sphere during manufacture

      2. Titanium alloys cost us the same in a full CURRENCY PIP
      ChDA grade vanadium pentoxide (pure for analysis) imported from Finland
      (have not yet mastered their production)
      In the late 70s, almost the entire annual production of Soviet titanium left for one project - project 945 lead nuclear submarine
      Under the USSR (CPSU), only we could afford this (though there was no toilet paper)

      3. They (the Pentagon) would not be allowed to make pl of titanium.
      For economic reasons.


      American engineer Krol patented a method of obtaining compact titanium in 1940 year.

      In the USSR in February 1957, the first titanium ingot with a diameter of 519 mm and a weight of 100 kg came out of factory furnaces (plant No. 4).


      US aerospace consumption - 60-75% (of total consumption)
      Europe is the same 50-60%.
      == Airbas, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. =====
      Japan in the aerospace sector ..... 2-3% (Japanese Boeing?)
      but 30% of the total titanium consumption in equipment and structural elements of chemical plants and 20% for nuclear energy and solid fuel power plants.
      1. Papakiko
        Papakiko 2 July 2013 14: 49
        +2
        Quote: Postman
        3. They (the Pentagon) would not be allowed to make pl of titanium. For economic reasons.

        Why did you draw such a conclusion?
        For economic reasons, a mattress vokurat always falls into all serious.
        Does the cost of the FU-22 and FU-35 tell you nothing?
        And this is just the iceberg's visible edge.
        1. postman
          postman 2 July 2013 17: 03
          0
          Quote: Papakiko
          for economic reasons, always falls into all serious.

          when?
          always a gimmick for $
          Analysis of the Fiscal Year ???? Pentagon Spending Request
          and under the USSR it was all simple, old-timers from the Politburo would decide to build from molybdenum ..... Would BUILD, without asking anyone.
          and the "poor fellows" from the Pentagon: commission, hearings in the Senate, competition, and so on. everything is described in the minotaur
          Quote: Papakiko
          Does the cost of the FU-22 and FU-35 tell you nothing?

          nothing.
          so as soon as someone does the same and opens the costs, then you can talk about something
          Quote: Papakiko
          And this is just the iceberg's visible edge.

          they have it is not possible. Budget and FC
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 2 July 2013 15: 13
        +6
        Quote: Postman
        Titanium (alloys) was not used for a good life.
        Everything is so, only sharks from titanium were not made, this fairy tale has been walking around all publications for a long time. Steel they were request
        1. fzr1000
          fzr1000 2 July 2013 16: 40
          0
          Titanium nuclear submarines project 661, 685, 705 K, 945, 945A and partly in the "Sharks" (941). Like so.
        2. postman
          postman 2 July 2013 17: 14
          +1
          Quote: Misantrop
          All right, that's just titanium sharks

          Well, I actually about titanium.
          And about sharks made of titanium, it's MCHPV писал
          maybe with 945 "Barracuda" mixed up
      3. rolik
        rolik 2 July 2013 21: 08
        +1
        Quote: Postman
        .Titanium (alloys) was not used for a good life

        Definitely not from a good life)))) We have one master in 93 bought a Volvo 240, and so his timing belt burst and the valve bent. They made him a valve made of titanium (tried to experiment), the car went)))))
        1. postman
          postman 3 July 2013 04: 45
          0
          Quote: rolik
          They made him a valve made of titanium (tried to experiment), the car went)))))

          but if it happens again, the belt will tear ....
          block head?
          Ti
          tensile strength not less than 500 to 630 MPa
          Modulus of normal elasticity, hPa 112
          Shear modulus, hPa 41
          Hardness, HB 130 ... 150

          Steel:
          330 MPa
          2 ∙ 1011 N / m2 (20 hPa)
          80 hPa
          120 250 ...
          ============================================
          Density at 20 ° С, 4,505 g / cm³ versus 7,700-7,900 g / m³, WELL THIS IS ONLY FOR USE, I can imagine how fast they (valves) ran
          1. rolik
            rolik 3 July 2013 10: 35
            0
            Quote: Postman
            but if it happens again, the belt will break.

            Already not tear))) He immediately sold it)))
    2. old man54
      old man54 2 July 2013 18: 38
      +1
      Quote: mhpv
      Our "Sharks" were built of titanium, and you know that light and durable metal

      why was the 941 project made of titanium built? Where is such nonsense ?? There was steel, special, high strength.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 2 July 2013 19: 50
        +3
        Quote: old man54
        There was steel, special, high strength.

        Austenitic steel grade AK-34. By the way, at a price as if not more expensive than titanium
        1. old man54
          old man54 2 July 2013 22: 06
          +1
          Quote: Misantrop
          Austenitic steel grade AK-34. By the way, at a price as if not more expensive than titanium

          Oh how? Thank you, I didn't know the steel grade for sure! :) And what does "Austenitic" mean?
          1. rolik
            rolik 2 July 2013 22: 24
            +1
            Quote: old man54
            And what does "Austenitic" mean?

            The austenitic class includes highly alloyed steels, which during crystallization form the predominantly single-phase austenitic γ-Fe structure with a face-centered crystalline (fcc) lattice and retain it during cooling to cryogenic temperatures.
            If it's easier - stainless steel))))))
    3. old man54
      old man54 2 July 2013 18: 41
      0
      Quote: mhpv
      Our "Sharks" were built of titanium, and you know that light and durable metal

      why did you decide that the 941 project was built from titanium? Where is such nonsense published? They had a steel case.
  • Sevastopolec
    Sevastopolec 2 July 2013 11: 51
    +1
    Informative article, thanks, author. Particularly good illustrations. good
    Yes ... Of course, "Shark" is one of the many symbols of the might and greatness of our Soviet socialist Motherland. It would be good if at least one of this underwater giant was preserved. I would very much like to come to Severomorsk someday and show this boat to my children. You know, I think that if all of them, God forbid, are decided to be disposed of, we cannot just sit and be silent! Now, thanks to the Internet, social. networks and sites such as VO, there are good opportunities to organize, so to speak, broad masses. To start collecting signatures, I am sure that all conscious, patriotic people will not be indifferent. I'm ready to do it myself.
    In the end, scrapping such a boat would still be very expensive. And put it in an eternal parking lot, make a "living monument", a museum (of course, after removing all overly secret equipment wink) would be much better. People will want to see this, foreigners will come, who will gladly pay for the opportunity to see this masterpiece of shipbuilding. And the people are well, and those in power will make themselves a gesheft.
  • bulgurkhan
    bulgurkhan 2 July 2013 11: 53
    0
    Surface displacement - 23 tons; underwater - 000 tons. The figures clearly indicate the enormous buoyancy reserve - more than 48 thousand tons of water are pumped into the ballast tanks of the boat to immerse the Sharks.

    With ballast tanks for 20000 tons of water, the diving operation would have lasted 10 hours. laughing
    The difference between the surface and underwater displacement arises due to the light body, and sea water flows into this volume without obstacles.
    1. During
      During 2 July 2013 12: 16
      +2
      either I didn’t understand you, or you were mistaken, if the water gets in without obstacles, then how does it play at displacement? displacement is affected by the volume of the durable hull and equipment (including ballast tanks) under the lightweight external hull, right?

      to the word about the terms: "Submarine displacement - the displacement of a submarine and other submarines in a submerged position. Exceeds the surface displacement by the mass of water taken when immersed in the main ballast tanks."

      So you are mistaken.
      1. ed65b
        ed65b 2 July 2013 12: 28
        0
        I think outboard water is not poured into buckets, for sure the pumps are standing. Tell me about the divers?
        1. Mhpv
          Mhpv 2 July 2013 12: 40
          +1
          In this case, it’s not about diving technology, but about the difference between surface and underwater displacement, so I don’t see anything funny.
        2. Misantrop
          Misantrop 2 July 2013 14: 20
          +2
          Quote: ed65b
          Outboard water is not poured into buckets, for sure the pumps are standing.
          Pumps there unnecessarily. In the upper part there are ventilation valves, and in the lower part of the terminal central cylinder head - kingstones (all the others do without them). So when diving, it is enough to open the ventilation valve so that the central cylinder is filled in seconds. And it is blown when high-pressure air is floated when the course and on the rudders exit to a positional position. You can blow at a depth (emergency), but there is crazy air consumption.

          And the difference between the surface and underwater displacement is precisely determined by the volume of tanks of the main ballast
          1. old man54
            old man54 2 July 2013 19: 17
            0
            Quote: Misantrop
            Pumps there unnecessarily. In the upper part there are ventilation valves, and in the lower part of the terminal central cylinder head - kingstones (all the others do without them). So when diving, it is enough to open the ventilation valve so that the central cylinder is filled in seconds. And it is blown when high-pressure air is floated when the course and on the rudders exit to a positional position. You can blow at a depth (emergency), but there is crazy air consumption.

            Do you want to say that even with urgent immersion, water flows by gravity into the main ballast tanks? Then she should go 5 under water for minutes. :) wink so there are probably pumps there for urgent diving. :)
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 2 July 2013 19: 55
              +5
              Quote: old man54
              Do you want to say that even with urgent immersion, water flows by gravity into the main ballast tanks?
              I want to say that this is the ONLY way to submerge submarines. And it takes literally seconds. The only option when the dive can slow down is if the inexperienced boatswain tries to dive without trim. Then there is a chance to stick to the surface of the water deck. The force of surface tension in such an area is SO large that it is VERY difficult to break away in this case
            2. stjrm
              stjrm 7 July 2013 13: 53
              0
              There are no and never were any submersible pumps. In order to make the submarine "heavy" there is a pulp and paper industry (rapid submersion tank ". But water gets there by gravity too. This tank is used, yes.)

              And etA, I will give you one advice, do not argue with specialists)
  • pensioner
    pensioner 2 July 2013 12: 07
    0
    The article is wonderful! I would read and read ... But it’s a pity - it ended ... Thanks a lot to the author!
  • pensioner
    pensioner 2 July 2013 12: 09
    0
    Yes! Katati! And where is our unforgettable "Losharik"? What is he doing?
    1. ed65b
      ed65b 2 July 2013 12: 26
      +1
      Quote: retired
      Yes! Katati! And where is our unforgettable "Losharik"? What is he doing?

      And he puts rockets to the bottom in the Pacific Ocean.
      1. old man54
        old man54 2 July 2013 19: 20
        0
        Quote: ed65b
        Quote: retired
        Yes! Katati! And where is our unforgettable "Losharik"? What is he doing?

        And he puts rockets to the bottom in the Pacific Ocean.

        yes rockets are unlikely, for this a special submarine project is needed, and there’s nothing for it to have such an immersion depth as his. He, the losharik, most likely lays out small nuclear charges at the places of the greatest tension of the tectonic faults, prepares them, or if there’s not enough of anything, suddenly someone pisses in his head and it seems to him that he already does not need anything.
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 2 July 2013 14: 20
      0
      Quote: retired
      What does he do?

      What can he do? Serves request
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 2 July 2013 12: 34
    +1
    A big plus for the article.
    But there is an opinion:
    1. that Shark Noisiness did not exceed Ohio noise and less than all BRDMs, but in the absence of planned maintenance and repairs, the indicators changed.
    2. The sturdy hull of the boat is made of steel with some titanium structural elements.
    3. that the Shark is faster and more maneuverable than the BRDM.
    4. that the photo of Borea against the background of the Shark is a photo montage since Borea and the Shark are almost equal in length and Borea is much larger than the tug.
    5. Trident-2 rocket is also a decent fool 2,1 meters in diameter 13 meters long and 60 tons weight, that is, the Ohio boat will be seven and a half floors of the house.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 2 July 2013 13: 43
      +1
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      BRDM

      I have a mistake, I didn’t put the letters, I apologize, BDRM is correct.
      Titanium ships are pr. 705, 945, 661
      1. fzr1000
        fzr1000 2 July 2013 16: 44
        0
        685 "Komsomolets", it really was not a BDRM.
    2. stjrm
      stjrm 7 July 2013 13: 59
      0
      I have a question. And why does BDRM need more speed than it has? Are you sure that "Shark" maneuvers BDR, BDRM?
      I know the cases when the BDR itself, without the help of a tug, moored to the port (one might say participated), but I have never heard of the "Shark".
  • fokino1980
    fokino1980 2 July 2013 12: 35
    0
    The article "... avno" was written by an amateur in tarpaulin boots, who understands little about the subject under discussion, but dashingly throws numbers! I will forward the article to the mechanic, let the old man laugh laughing
    1. ed65b
      ed65b 2 July 2013 12: 48
      +6
      We are waiting for an article from you. It would be interesting to read.
      1. lelikas
        lelikas 2 July 2013 16: 55
        0
        Quote: ed65b
        We are waiting for an article from you. It would be interesting to read.

        To be honest, I also didn’t understand what the article was about - it’s usually understandable that the destroyers are good, the ekranoplanes are bad - you can argue and / or agree - but here there are simply boats that are big and not very big, but if you think about the aircraft carrier more.
  • Balash
    Balash 2 July 2013 13: 02
    0
    All the same, without geographical maps of the "Sharks" patrol areas, the depths in them and the behavior of ice throughout the year, it is difficult to judge the capabilities and security of the system.
  • postman
    postman 2 July 2013 13: 46
    +4
    Quote: Author
    By the way, an interesting question: why are American boats always smaller? Is it really the fault of "Soviet chips - the biggest chips in the world" ?!

    the answer is "commonplace" but not correct. the correct answer in the weight and size characteristics of products, what they are intended for
    1.R-39 (8250km, 90tn 16m length x2,4 m diameter + wet start (water is not air)
    UGM-133A Trident II (D5) (7838 ... 11300km, 59,1tn 13,5 m and 2,1 m respectively
    2.P-700 Granite and Tomahawk and Sub-Harpoon.
    Here everything is immediately visible in the form, even for the 955 "Northwind" - DOES NOT CLEAR IN OVERALL DIMENSIONS
    3.Size
    Single hull or 2x (even 3x) ANSWER IN THE PLANE OF TECHNOLOGICAL POSSIBILITIES:
    with a single-case design, the robust housing has the form at the same time satisfying both conditions of resistance to pressure, and streamlining conditions.
    speed and depth of immersion in our time (2mv PL type VII: 1,5 hull)
    X-Craft (1943) - 1
    Dolfejnklasse (1954) -3 (!)
    Quote: Author
    American boats have a single hull structure and, as a result, a smaller margin of buoyancy.

    mixed up the reason with the investigation.
    a ballast tank of a larger volume has a greater weight (the strength of the wall still needs to be ensured to withstand a pressure MORE than the OS pressure. Otherwise, you will not displace anything
    And?
    And as a result, Project 885 “Ash” has ... has one and a half body with a light body only in the nose and with a superstructure in the area of ​​missile silos.
    / probably spat on a larger buoyancy reserve? /
    Quote: Author
    Why do I say "everything"? Just an example: to control the modern American submarine "Pikes" - an unsurpassed underwater killer of the type "Los Angeles" requires a crew of 130 people! At the same time, the American, as usual, is saturated to the limit with electronics and automation systems, and its dimensions are smaller by 25% (displacement - 6000 / 7000 tons).

    and you compared the amount of free space for the crew.
    In the photo, the opposite is true. It's a bit crowded with us.
    The crew of the Wangard class submarine consists of 135 people. For the personnel there are equipped wardrooms combining a dining room, an assembly hall and rest rooms. Crew members together with the service can improve their education, for which there is a large library on the boat. A distinctive feature of the Vengard class nuclear submarines is the provision of the maximum possible comfort to crew membersThanks to which it is easier to carry long (up to 3 months) trips in the North Atlantic and the Norwegian Sea.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 2 July 2013 14: 25
      +1
      Quote: Postman
      A distinctive feature of the Wangard class nuclear submarines is to provide crew members with the maximum possible comfort, thanks to which long (up to 3 months) trips in the North Atlantic and the Norwegian Sea are easier to carry.

      Yes, the Americans are VERY proud of this. Still, on these submarines, they were able to EVEN provide each submariner his sleeping place (before this Americans could not boast such comfort) request
      1. postman
        postman 2 July 2013 14: 51
        +2
        Quote: Misantrop
        Yes, Americans VERY proud of it

        may be...

        Only here is the misfortune of the Vengard class submarines (SSBN Vanguard) - this is the british submarine, manufactured at the shipyards of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. b

        by the way, the author has a lot of articles and illustrations (attacks in other people's comments on them), where there is a photo about COMFORTABILITY OF CREWING STAYs with us and with them.
        Chic photos, I recommend
        http://topwar.ru/29881-krylataya-demokratiya-vms-ssha.html
        http://topwar.ru/29392-lodki-idut-vokrug-zemli.html
        well and so on
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 2 July 2013 15: 02
          +3
          Quote: Postman
          Chic photos, I recommend
          Photos are not bad, I agree. But for some reason there are no American submariners' cabins. Consoles, combat posts, recreation areas - yes, there are. And the cabins ... no. Have you ever wondered why? Maybe because they almost do not exist in nature? Is that the command group. Well, the living conditions on our nuclear submarines, I myself "studied" with my sides for how many years wink

          Again, there is still a lot and depends on the photographer. You can remove it VERY differently. Did not try to compare the photo of Red Square with ... her, real? Strongly similar in size? lol
          1. postman
            postman 2 July 2013 16: 36
            +1
            Quote: Misantrop
            But for some reason there are no cabins for American submariners on them.

            I had somewhere, but a movie. there they are. the British for sure, I posted it somewhere, in comments.
            Quote: Misantrop
            Maybe because they almost never exist in nature?

            come on. ... 3 months in the corridor .... ?? However! not migrant workers yet
            They refuse to fight without toilet paper.
            about "Borea"
            According to the officers who tested the ships, the cabins on the submarines are made too tight. In addition, they do not have tables needed to fill out various documents. On "Yuri Dolgoruky" between the bunks there are nightstands, which are inconvenient for working with papers, and on "Alexander Nevsky" ─ washbasins, which the military had to cover with plywood to make it convenient to fill out documents.

            The sailors did not arrange smoking rooms, the area of ​​which is only two square meters. Finally, some officers were surprised at the use of Philips lighting lamps on Russian strategic submarines, rather than one of the Russian enterprises.

            At the same time, the sailors gave a positive response to the work of latrine equipped with electronic systems. Finally, the military liked the orthopedic mattresses. They are equipped with all berths on the ships of the Borey project.

            The High Command of the Navy is preparing proposals to change the layout of the cabins of the latest nuclear submarines (NPS) of Project 955 Borey, which were adopted by the strategic fleet in January 2013.


            Quote: Misantrop
            Again, there is still a lot and depends on the photographer.

            it is 100%, it’s enough to look at the Finnlines catalog at least once in your life, and then sail along the Helsinki-Travemunde route
            1. jjj
              jjj 3 July 2013 00: 56
              0
              They also demanded leather chairs and beautiful furniture to be like on "cruise ships". At this rate, soon our youth will not go out to sea without "popcorn"
            2. stjrm
              stjrm 7 July 2013 14: 07
              0
              Yes, and I read this Hochma, about mattresses and electronic latrine ..... long neighing. The son still wants to see this scribbler ....
        2. stjrm
          stjrm 7 July 2013 14: 17
          0
          Well, I don’t know, for example, it was quite comfortable on the BDR.
          I lived in the 5th compartment. And the wardroom is pretty decent.
          We made ourselves an Iparilka in the factory. Together - three very much nothing. And they made one shower stall for a mini pool, but rather a fast for a font. Very much nothing after the steam room but in the font with outboard water. The temperature is somewhere around 3-5 degrees. In general, a bath in a car truck is just happiness. Who went that I think will support.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 2 July 2013 14: 56
      0
      Quote: Postman
      Trident II (D5) (7838 ... 11300km

      Can you decipher, the R-39 is only 8250 km and the Americans have 7838 and 11300 km
      In 2001, when a missile launched 12 missiles, observers from America very quickly went to their cabin, since the Americans did not achieve such reliability until now. andreitk20
      Quote: Postman
      wet start (

      The rocket is launched from a "dry" mine using a powder pressure accumulator placed on the bottom of the mine in the nozzle of the first stage engine. At the moment of launch, special powder charges located on the ARSS create a gas cavity around the rocket, which significantly reduces the hydrodynamic loads on the underwater section of movement. After exiting the water, the ARSS is separated from the rocket by means of a special engine and is pulled aside at a safe distance from the submarine. The command to start the first stage engine is given at the moment the rocket leaves the mine.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 2 July 2013 15: 07
        +4
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        In 2001, when a missile launched 12 missiles, observers from America very quickly went to their cabin, since the Americans did not achieve such reliability until now.

        Only the day before yesterday, Rauf Latypov remembered this shooting under a glass ... The youngest of the rockets fired back then was more than 5 years past due. And at the same time, such a result. There is something for Americans to envy ...

        A wet way shoots 667 project. His rockets launch a mid-flight engine right in the mine
        1. stjrm
          stjrm 7 July 2013 14: 21
          0
          I’ll correct you with a colleague, the axis engine starts after a rocket leaves the water, at a cut. But our missiles will start with B, BDR, BDRM on the steering units.
      2. postman
        postman 2 July 2013 16: 58
        +3
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        Can you decipher, the R-39 is only 8250 km and the Americans have 7838 and 11300 km


        the "Variant" has figures of 9000-10000 km (sometimes more than 10000 km)
        10 (and then 8) RGCh-8 /

        monoblock maneuvering high-speed warhead was in the program

        T2 D5 has variations
        7838 km - at maximum load, 11300 km - due to the reduced number of warheads and their type W88 / Mk5 and W76 / Mk4

        Quote: saturn.mmm
        how americos have not reached such reliability so far

        UGM-133A Trident II (D5) is one of the most reliable in the world (if not the most) = more than 130 successful starts.

        Quote: saturn.mmm
        wet start (
        yes I'm talking aboutP-700 granite wrote. distracted ...
        PAD - powder accumulator of pressure provides the launch of the rocket. The PAD was developed and manufactured by the Lyubertsy NPO "Soyuz" (leading designers B.P. Zhukov and Z.P. Pak).
        Although the wet start is by no means a minus (for performance characteristics, but not for the carrier) with 1 liter of water, so much steam will come out and all this does not fly along with the rocket, i.e. does not reduce the load
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 2 July 2013 16: 32
    0
    And the author is still great! And he gave colorful visual pictures, very simply explaining the difference in size. And the design schools of our submarines and the Americans diverged back in the 50s for many reasons. Both the twin-shaft propellers and the often large sizes of our submarines were determined by the general technological level of the USSR military-industrial complex. By the example of those systems with which I had to work on the "Akula", I know that if the components of the electronic equipment were similar to those in the West then, my equipment would have taken up 2 times less volume. And there are hundreds of different tricky systems on submarines. So it was necessary to increase the cubic meters inside the boats.
    1. postman
      postman 2 July 2013 17: 24
      +2
      Quote: xomaNN
      REA as then similar in the West, my equipment would occupy a volume 2 times smaller

      Is there a large share of electronics in total compared to ...
      compared to ICBMs? or with YaSU?= minuscule.
      no one will notice.
      take a look at this photo, you can immediately see what determines the dimensions of the submarine (beta or mbr)

      or here:
      http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/proekty/voennaja_tekhnika/atomnye_podvodnye_lodki_s_kryl

      atymi_raketami /
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 3 July 2013 22: 27
        0
        Quote: Postman
        take a look at this photo, you can immediately see what determines the dimensions of the submarine

        Here at this boat that in the photo the sizes of the missiles are
        Missile mass, kg 40 300
        Length, m 14,8
        Diameter, m 1,9
        Maximum range, km 8300
        The thrown weight, kg 2800
        Trident has 2 sizes
        Rocket diameter, m 2,11
        The length of the missile assembly, m 13,42
        Maximum take-off weight, kg 59 078
        The maximum thrown weight, kg 2800
        If you count, then the American volume is slightly larger
        1. postman
          postman 3 July 2013 23: 49
          +1
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          If you count, then the American volume is slightly larger

          1. Not much, approx. 10% (cube of magnitude) (2,11) q * 13,42 / (1,9) q * 14,8
          2. Well, 1,48 m in length is not "small" at all, only 38 cm (!) Below me
          3.wet start (Dynamic Gas Bell will not fall)? -> mine size is larger
          4. the length and diameter of the shaft is also longer due to reusable rubber-metal shock absorbers and the annular gap is increased to 150 millimeters

          so pl is bigger, and carries MUCH more ICBMs, and doesn’t look so specific .....

          667BDR: length - 155 m, width - 11,7 m, draft - 8,7 m./16 PU with zm 2800kg

          Ohio class SSBN / SSGN - 170,7 m, 12,8 m,11,1 m /24 Trident II with ZM 2800kg - DISTANCE MORE by 26%

          there is still yas
          S8G: Diameter 12,8 m, length - 16,8 m, total weight - 2750 t. (Judging by the capacity of the steam turbine units Tm the same is about 180 MW)
          2 x pressurized water reactors VM-4S (dimensions ?? x ?? X ?? -> I.N.Bekman
          NUCLEAR INDUSTRY Lecture course (Lecture 16. NUCLEAR ENGINES FOR TRANSPORT)) at 89,2 MWh2 each
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 4 July 2013 13: 23
            0
            Quote: Postman
            so pl is bigger, and carries MUCH more ICBMs, and doesn’t look so specific .....

            She not only looks but also sounds specific.
            Quote: Postman
            RANGE MORE BY 26%

            In the case of a warhead 4 of 100 ct. Everything is relative.
          2. stjrm
            stjrm 7 July 2013 14: 39
            0
            And everything is due to different missiles. In our case, they are liquid, in theirs solid fuel.
            By the way, BDRM missiles, the same "Sineva", "Liner" are considered unsurpassed in terms of their mass and energy characteristics. The eventual adversary admits this too. And there too. The Americans could not create anything like this on liquid fuel.
            Although, of course, it must be recognized that solid-fuel missiles have a number of advantages in terms of maintenance and storage on the same submarines.
      2. stjrm
        stjrm 7 July 2013 14: 25
        0
        And how much do you think is occupied by the missile complex missile defense complex on this ship?
        1. postman
          postman 8 July 2013 20: 49
          0
          Quote: stjrm
          And how much do you think is occupied by the missile complex missile defense complex on this ship?

          And tell me, on the basis of what base is it (CVK) executed?

          The way out was found. This is the development and application of precision gyroscopic devices operating in a vacuum on board the R-29 rocket, as well as astro correction systems, the transition from analog to digital-analog and then completely to digital systems using high-performance small-sized on-board digital computer systems and ship digital computer systems with special software. ATThe use of external correction of the trajectory according to external reference points has become a landmark and priority decision for military missiles.

          Probably something similar (in size) to 5E65B, 5E67 based on 5E261 computer ???

          Cabin A-31M - 20 "container, including (!) All cooling and ventilation systems, suitable as an analogue
          NOT?
  • Old_kapitan
    Old_kapitan 2 July 2013 17: 09
    +2
    Ohio "is almost half the width of the Soviet monster
    What does the width have to do with it? Volume! In "Akula" because of two strong hulls (there are more of them, but for now we will neglect as friction in a school problem), there is a lot of empty inter-hull space, therefore, with almost the same surface displacement, the underwater one of the Akula is much larger (hence the "water carrier" ). Remember Archimedes' law:
    A body thrown into water
    Sticks out to freedom.
    The volume of water drawn out
    Equals the inverted tudes.
    1. jjj
      jjj 3 July 2013 01: 04
      0
      Well, do not forget about the depths of the bases of the deployment
  • Old_kapitan
    Old_kapitan 2 July 2013 17: 14
    +2
    The working depth range is more than 500 meters.
    And again a blunder! The range suggests from and to. And more than some value - this is the maximum (s, s, etc.).
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 2 July 2013 18: 34
      0
      So everything is clear - from zero to a magnitude greater than 500 meters (apparently there were no more accurate data)
  • Old_kapitan
    Old_kapitan 2 July 2013 17: 21
    +5
    In order to accelerate the "loaf" to such speeds, the boat was equipped with a two-reactor power plant - uranium assemblies in two OK-650 reactors burned with terrible black fire.
    Wow, how beautiful! One would like to compare with the burning eyes of Mephistopheles. That's just ... My old 667B also has a two-reactor. But we usually walked under one side, the left side (I was lucky, just my Red Banner 8th). Small moves - 5-6 knots. I don’t think that the "loaf" has been running around the seas like a madman for the entire military service.
    1. stjrm
      stjrm 7 July 2013 14: 32
      0
      Why do we need great speed for strategists?
      Half atomki on one side, half under the other. Speeds, the speed is such that the ship obeyed the rudders, and in my practice there were 3,5 knots.
  • Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 2 July 2013 18: 25
    +3
    In the mid-80s, work was carried out to minimize the means of landing field (alternate) aerodromes. For this, it was decided to study the experience of naval aviators on a similar problem. We arrived in Sevastopol. The aircraft carrier "Kiev" was at that time on the stocks of the repair plant. The spectacle is simply outstanding. Imagine a huge ship, standing on a "box", and on it they are repairing the sides (basically they beat off shells and polyps from the side with chisels). The spectacle is breathtaking. We got on the deck of the cruiser And immediately the officer of the watch warned us to go in a compact group. Because if someone lags behind the group, they can find him on the ship in a week (the ship is under repair). And we believed it. The building is simply fantastic in size. I can't imagine how you can serve at the height of a multi-storey building when there is a storm at sea. I admire the sailors! But "Admiral Kuznetsov" will be more. Today the fleet is fantastic in size, has fantastic weapons, and unfortunately costs fantastic money.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 2 July 2013 18: 45
    +1
    I liked the article, thanks to Oleg for the photo, looked with interest, only you were a little mistaken with the comment on the picture with aircraft carriers. The victory of technology over common sense - this is how the engineers of the Malakhit Design Bureau called the 941 project, aircraft carriers are absolutely nothing here)
  • old man54
    old man54 2 July 2013 19: 34
    +1
    the article as a whole is interesting, but what is it about ??? If this is an introductory article for "dummies" who do not know anything about modern nuclear submarines of all classes, then this is one thing. and if, nevertheless, Oleg wanted to tell us something, to make some kind of comparison, then I did not see him, forgive me! In general, this article reminds me of still Soviet books for senior schoolchildren, where information about the Navy, about the nuclear submarine was given so sparingly, and everything was chewed just as much, but not deeply, since the children were the same. The author of the members of the forum equated to the children of senior school age ??? Funny ...
    1. Cat
      Cat 2 July 2013 19: 55
      +7
      Quote: old man54
      In general, this article also reminds me of Soviet books for senior schoolchildren, where info on the Navy, on nuclear submarines was so sparingly given and everything was also chewed up, but not deeply, as the children are. The author of members of the forum equalized to children of high school age ??? Funny ...

      judging by other comments on other topics, some members of the forum are not like going to school - they’re early to go to daycare =)

      A good article will be. Though a little naive and superficial, but Oleg, in any case, well done. Better a mess about the boats - than about the Pendosov, Geyropeytsev, and other evil spirits =)))
  • The comment was deleted.
  • alex20081308
    alex20081308 2 July 2013 22: 14
    -1
    Lord. you do not understand. There is the concept of surface unsinkability. But there is no concept of underwater unsinkability. And if a boat carries 20000 tons of water with it, then after a torpedo hits it, it will not help her. The only plus of this monster is the ability to break ice. So NATO’s strategic boats were not designed to operate in the Arctic. They are in the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian Ocean and are ready to finish us from there. So these comparisons are not correct.
  • lelikas
    lelikas 3 July 2013 01: 21
    0
    Quote: alex20081308
    There is the concept of surface unsinkability. But there is no concept of underwater unsinkability
    - Stock buoyancy, no, not heard ...
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 3 July 2013 21: 48
    0
    An informative article, but it was always incomprehensible to me why not to make in "strategic" and "torpedo" boats all the compartments are modular and "conventionally the same", except for the compartment with missile weapons - 1 ballistic, 2 tactical missiles, hence :
    - construction would be simplified and cheaper;
    - The training of crews would be simplified and cheaper;
    - the infrastructure would be simplified and cheaper ...
    Of course, these are different boats, with different displacement, with different tasks ... but to ME it seems that there is a rational grain here! hi
    1. Cat
      Cat 4 July 2013 03: 55
      0
      Quote: sergey158-29
      it was always unclear to me why not to make all the compartments modular and “conditionally identical” in the "strategic" and "torpedo" boats, except for the compartment with missile weapons

      according to rumors, such ideas are being worked out - but everything rests on the very specific requirements that are necessary for one class of boats and at the same time are categorically harmful for another. That is, when you try to unify, standardize and "modulate" - you get not a universal design, but the devil is that the bow on the side. And how to get around all these nuances is still unclear.
      Although, we can come up with something, wise design heads. Wait and see =)
  • smart ass
    smart ass 4 July 2013 09: 08
    +1
    You have to face it, the Shark is so big because solid rockets are hefty! and that's it, just to push it into another boat.
  • NickitaDembelnulsa
    NickitaDembelnulsa 6 July 2013 16: 39
    -1
    "The newest Russian multipurpose nuclear submarine K-329" Severodvinsk "(admission to the Navy is planned for 2013).
    In the background, you can see two sharks undergoing recycling "- What did the author mean in the last photo ??? !!! I already grabbed my heart. You understand recycling ...
    1. stjrm
      stjrm 7 July 2013 14: 47
      0
      Yes, that’s what I meant ..... I broke up on needles ...
  • ekzorsist
    ekzorsist 7 July 2013 22: 25
    0
    ... Stupidly and recklessly cut good boats ... the same pragmatic amers found the same application for Ohio ... but why not find a worthy application for the Shark too?
  • caretaker
    caretaker 19 July 2013 10: 24
    0
    I don’t own the full numbers, but how many modern boats or ships can I build for the money spent on the Sochi Olympics? Or modern roads, better!