Military Review

The submarine K-263 "Barnaul" decided to dispose of

50

State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom announced a tender for the disposal of the nuclear submarine of the 971 project (Pike-B) - K-263 Barnaul.


“Lot name: dismantling of the cruising nuclear submarine of the 971 project, factory number 502,” says a message posted on the public procurement website, which eagle-rost paid attention to. 502 is the Barnaul submarine serial number.

The initial contract price is 246 million rubles. Disposal must be completed by November 2016.

The K-263 submarine was put into service on December 31 1988 of the year, entering the Pacific Fleet. In 1990, she performed her first and only combat service, after which she served for the training of combat training tasks by personnel of the rest of the submarines of her series.

28 April 1992 was reclassified into a nuclear cruising submarine. 13 April 1993 of the year received the name "Dolphin".

9 February 2002 of the year received the name “Barnaul” in connection with the establishment of patronage relations with the administration of the city of the same name.

Included in the 10th Submarine Division of the 16th Pacific Submarine Squadron fleet. Now under repair.

At present, 12 submarines of the 971 project are in service with the Russian Navy, most of which, according to open data, are under repair or are awaiting repair. Earlier it was announced that two submarines of this project: “Samara” (NPS K-295) and “Bratsk” (NPS K-391) - will be upgraded.
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 10kAzAk01
    10kAzAk01 16 December 2013 10: 52 New
    10
    the sad news ...
    1. AVV
      AVV 16 December 2013 11: 36 New
      16
      And why not upgrade, it is not even a quarter of a century old, could it serve more !!! ???
      1. shpuntik
        shpuntik 16 December 2013 15: 56 New
        +2
        AVV (1) SU Today, 11:36 ↑
        And why not upgrade, it is not even a quarter of a century old, could it serve more !!! ???

        Apparently because the "partners" will not understand. Our best boats, successful project. 23 years at the wall of the plant, and do not bring to mind ?? request Put the article - although this will not change anything. Here is a quote from the wiki, I think not unfounded.
        The American naval analyst N. Polmar, at a meeting in the US Congress in 1997, stated the following:
        There were ominous signs that the Soviets were successful in reducing the noise of submarines. Soviet Akula class boats that went to sea in the mid-1980s were much quieter than predicted.
        Original text (English) [show]
        [Improved Akula’s nuclear submarines launched in the 1990s soon revealed that the Soviets surpassed the US Navy in some aspects of acoustic masking — the Improved Akula was quieter than our latest attacking Improved Los Angeles class submarines .
        Original text (English) [show]
        In the same speech, Polmar quoted the words of the US Naval Operations Commander, Admiral Jeremy Burda (Eng. Jeremy Michael Boorda):
        For the first time since we launched the Nautilus, a situation arose that the Russians in the sea have submarines that are quieter than ours. As you know, for submarines low noise is the main quality.
      2. tilovaykrisa
        tilovaykrisa 16 December 2013 21: 56 New
        +2
        The resource worked out is not to change the electronics on the fighter, you need a normal rotation and plans to commission fresh submarines. 1 wrote off two in the system.
      3. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 16 December 2013 22: 23 New
        +5
        Quote: AVV
        And why not upgrade, it is not even a quarter of a century old, could it serve more !!! ???


        The first boat of the series. Apparently there are so many jambs on it that it is easier to build a new one.

        Surely a pity.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 17 December 2013 00: 24 New
          +4
          Quote: Geisenberg
          The first boat of the series. Apparently there are so many jambs on it that it is easier to build a new one.

          Usually, the lead boat is taken very carefully. The procedure for admission to the Navy is regulated in detail. One autonomy is clearly not enough for a ship of this class.
          What could have happened? After 10 years staging for repair. Seems to be OK. And then ...
          1. The problem with the reactor and RB is unlikely, but possible;
          2. The time has passed for turbine uncoupling, pipeline surveys, problems with circulation pumps;
          3. Problem with GTZA and shaft line;
          4. "Zeroing" of a large number (more than 50%) of SAC transceivers;
          5. The boat is "silent" became a donor for running ships 10 dIPL - and this is the most likely reason for the looting of the mat of the ship.
          GTU calculated the cost of work, materials, time and load of the slipway (dock), the Navy commission came to the conclusion that it is cheaper to write it off. Reported to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, approved the decision on disposal. Probably it was.
          1. Geisenberg
            Geisenberg 17 December 2013 02: 29 New
            +2
            Quote: BoA KAA
            Quote: Geisenberg
            The first boat of the series. Apparently there are so many jambs on it that it is easier to build a new one.

            .What could have happened? ....


            Don’t bother yourself. Everything could turn up at once and all separately. The head shell usually reveals all design flaws, and apparently it happened.
          2. shpuntik
            shpuntik 17 December 2013 14: 31 New
            0
            Boa KAA RU Today, 00:24 ↑
            What could have happened?

            Most likely what you need to cut the body for. I heard that they wanted to put "Sapphire" from it on other boats. So the reactor ...
            They’ll attack you, catch the spies. wink
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 17 December 2013 22: 31 New
              +1
              Quote: shpuntik
              So the reactor ...

              Hello Roman! The reactor (remember the basing system and the RB post on the pier) if zoned, then it would be dragged into a sump, but not left on the territory of the plant.
              1. shpuntik
                shpuntik 18 December 2013 02: 01 New
                0
                KAA boa RU Yesterday, 22:31 ↑ New
                Hello Roman! The reactor (remember the basing system and the RB post on the pier) if zoned, then it would be dragged into a sump, but not left on the territory of the plant.

                Hello Alexander. I do not want to guess on coffee grounds, one of the assumptions. As for the background, you're right, judging by the photo, the watch was rushing.
                It happens that the metal is cracking, it does not weld in place, only change. It can be a shaft line, one of the cooling circuits, whatever.
                Another thing is not clear: so much time to make a decision, and in the end to dispose of ?? negative
    2. tilovaykrisa
      tilovaykrisa 16 December 2013 21: 55 New
      +2
      Let at least everyone recycle but instead of decommissioned 2 new ones into operation, then it will be normal.
  2. Airman
    Airman 16 December 2013 10: 52 New
    10
    Do not understand why only once went to sea? So there was something wrong with her. Submariners from the Pacific Fleet, educate. And why will a "third-party" organization be engaged in disposal, after all, the boat is nuclear?
    1. Russ69
      Russ69 16 December 2013 11: 10 New
      +7
      Quote: Povshnik
      I don’t understand why I just went to sea only once? So something was wrong with her.

      One way out is combat. And then it became a training, to prepare the crew for the boats of this series.
      1. Airman
        Airman 16 December 2013 11: 33 New
        +2
        Quote: Russ69

        One way out is combat. And then it became a training, to prepare the crew for the boats of this series.

        If from each series of nuclear submarines to make one training submarine, then it is too expensive "pleasure".
        1. DimychDV
          DimychDV 16 December 2013 18: 52 New
          +1
          Yeah, and our aircraft carrier "Minsk" or "Novorossiysk" - is a tourist attraction somewhere in China. And the nuclear-powered cruiser Frunze (Admiral Lazarev) is still idle and rusting. And "Buran" was given somewhere abroad for a cheap price - also as a tourist object ...
          And after all, not with the Sword ...
      2. avt
        avt 16 December 2013 13: 56 New
        +3
        Quote: Russ69
        One way out is combat. And then it became a training, to prepare the crew for the boats of this series.

        Quote: Povshnik
        If from each series of nuclear submarines to make one training submarine, then it is too expensive "pleasure".

        Indeed, something is wrong with the boat, it seems that there are manufacturing flaws that cannot be eliminated, but considering that
        Quote: donavi49
        Since 1998, the boat sucks without maintenance.

        Yes, it’s easier and cheaper to disassemble and put in new material and mechanisms that cannot be disposed of, and to repair less damaged ones.
        Quote: indiggo
        As shown by the inventory, 6-8 will actually go through the rest of the modernization in the scrap.

        Alas! Prose of life. It’s not enough to build well, it’s also necessary to operate and maintain it at the proper level, but how was it in the 90s .... request So you need to look at things soberly. If only they hadn’t sold it to China for scrap, but they would have let the material out and not worn-out mechanisms that are only to be repaired for new ones. Oleg Kaptsov will write another angry article laughing but this is normal practice.
    2. DimychDV
      DimychDV 16 December 2013 18: 49 New
      +1
      And why did not Buran fly into a manned flight? Look at the years of graduation ...
  3. avant-garde
    avant-garde 16 December 2013 10: 55 New
    +2
    Earlier it became known that two submarines of this project: Samara (K-295 nuclear submarines) and Bratsk (K-391 nuclear submarines) will be modernized.-this boat is not subject to modernization ??? Just to cut something fool
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 16 December 2013 11: 12 New
      +4
      Quote: avant-garde
      -this boat is not subject to modernization ???

      I also noticed, the 88th year, it seems not old, what is the reason for disposal?
    2. Russ69
      Russ69 16 December 2013 11: 13 New
      19
      Quote: avant-garde
      and this boat which is not subject to modernization ??? Just to cut something

      The boat was training and the first in the series, which means that most likely with certain imperfections. Not every boat, it is advisable to restore, sometimes it is easier to build a new one.
  4. Neighbor
    Neighbor 16 December 2013 11: 04 New
    11
    Stalin (Dzhugashvili) is gaining popularity because the present are all "Trotsky" (Bronsteins).
  5. zemlyak
    zemlyak 16 December 2013 11: 08 New
    +1
    Well, it’s completely incomprehensible, the boat was standing still, it didn’t develop its resource, most of the key mechanisms were in their original form ... The boat didn’t "run", the "undercarriage" and "the engine (turbines, shafts) were not worn out! Why dispose of it? has developed a resource, so change it, and let the boat serve, on trips to the B / D takes over ?! Well, if there are good reasons to refuse it, why is it not said in the article at least a hint. After all, it is not very old, in the 90s accepted - 23 years old, - just mature age ?! And who makes such decisions ???
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 16 December 2013 13: 26 New
      12
      From 1998 of the year the boat sucks without maintenance. What are you speaking about??? She is a corpse. And the corpse for 10 years without any options for revival.
  6. AK-47
    AK-47 16 December 2013 11: 37 New
    +1
    The submarine K-263 "Barnaul" decided to dispose of

    The decision is not right, paint, sweep and sell to India for $ 246 million.
    1. Neighbor
      Neighbor 16 December 2013 11: 43 New
      +2
      Yes, for the indicated amount, our "effective" managers "Mistral" are not able to buy.
  7. not good
    not good 16 December 2013 11: 59 New
    +1
    With an acute shortage of ships at the Pacific Fleet and very modest new arrivals of ships, the withdrawal from the current structure of combat-ready and not having exhausted the modernization potential of the ships is a very short-sighted decision that smacks of betrayal.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 16 December 2013 13: 25 New
      +5
      She is not combat-ready, and in the 1998 year she was taken out to suck, de facto written off.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. Neighbor
    Neighbor 16 December 2013 12: 04 New
    0
    minus from effective is better than any plus !!!!!!
  10. Volkhov
    Volkhov 16 December 2013 12: 16 New
    +3
    It is part of the 10 division of submarines of the 16 sub squadron of Pacific Fleet submarines. Now it is under repair.

    From repair to recycling? This is for deceiving enemy intelligence services - suddenly they were recruiting personnel in a madhouse or in a kindergarten ... after all, they believed at the "military" forum.
    1. sub307
      sub307 16 December 2013 13: 07 New
      -2
      And what, on repair "cut", and on cut "rollback".
      1. alone
        alone 16 December 2013 21: 40 New
        -1
        but how to hide the dough cut during the repair? right. utilization. And if you think the forum users are right, they kept him in the crap for 15 years, which means that he is already unsuitable.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  11. indiggo
    indiggo 16 December 2013 13: 13 New
    +5
    she has problems with the reactor, that is, she is working but can’t stand long trips. almost every boat has problems, some are solvable and some do not, alas, it stood too much ... as the inventory showed, really 6-8 the rest will be modernized to the scrap.
  12. shtanko.49
    shtanko.49 16 December 2013 13: 25 New
    +1
    Quote: sub307
    And what, on repair "cut", and on cut "rollback".

    Or maybe it's all bullshit?
  13. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 16 December 2013 14: 27 New
    0
    Quote: "The State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom has announced a tender for the disposal of the Project 971 (Schuka-B) nuclear submarine - K-263 Barnaul."

    At least surprising is the fact of the destruction of this atomic submarine. As part of the Pacific Fleet, submarines of this class are issued in 1987-1990 years. Why did this boat not please the fleet? Or is some unsightly story hushed up?
  14. gladysheff2010
    gladysheff2010 16 December 2013 14: 54 New
    +3
    Sometimes you read other comments and wonder how you can read a little of what is written above or scratch your fingers on the keys. It’s better to be more correct, gentlemen officers, more correct!
  15. GELEZNII_KAPUT
    GELEZNII_KAPUT 16 December 2013 15: 17 New
    +2
    I live in the city of Barnaul, sadness, longing, sadness, probably poorly sponsored ... sad
  16. rudolff
    rudolff 16 December 2013 15: 19 New
    +6
    The ship had only one combat service, but nevertheless she continued to go to sea in the BP regions and until the last was in the first line. It was withdrawn from the permanent readiness forces in the 98th year due to the "expiration of the service life of individual products" and from that time was in anticipation of an average repair. This boat had nothing fatally insurmountable in its technical condition. They simply rotted away at the wall, like half of the entire fleet. In general, it is high time to conduct a complete inventory of the ship composition of the fleet, which is under repair, awaiting repair, in reserve, and to make a decision on each (!) Ship at the level of the government commission. We have already gotten everything to secretly write off and saw. As if the very service of ships, boats, it is like an obsessive burden, and the main thing is to build and start up on metal.
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 16 December 2013 17: 38 New
      0
      Quote: rudolff
      They simply rotted against the wall,

      Sold all honey and silver containing
  17. Leshka
    Leshka 16 December 2013 18: 58 New
    0
    sadness crying well, that is
  18. Unisonic
    Unisonic 16 December 2013 19: 00 New
    0
    The Soviet fleet has long been covered, and in the 1990s and 2000s, there was no rearmament of the fleet. Therefore, where the new ship was supposed to be, the old ship is serving, and often look at that, there is no one serving anymore.
    I don’t know which is better, because sending ancient ships to the sea has become simply dangerous. After all, an emergency, including and with losses among the personnel, they will grow like a snowball, in the absence of timely decommissioning of completely obsolete machines that still do not receive proper and timely maintenance and repair, which is also critically important.
  19. karal
    karal 16 December 2013 19: 13 New
    +2
    Sorry for the boat, at such a pace and the whole country can be disposed of! stop
  20. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 16 December 2013 19: 45 New
    +2
    While standing, it was completely plundered, apparently there was nothing to collect. that’s the whole reason
  21. dpurpur
    dpurpur 16 December 2013 19: 58 New
    0
    I join, very sorry. Ships - they are like people.
  22. voliador
    voliador 16 December 2013 21: 13 New
    +1
    Write off - not build. For this, just one stroke of the pen is enough.
  23. vadim dok
    vadim dok 16 December 2013 21: 25 New
    +1
    Only 25 years old and already in junk! Very sorry!
    1. undusk
      undusk 17 December 2013 21: 20 New
      +1
      These ships were originally designed for operation during LJ years (Tue), in short, average repairs were not provided for. Do not forget, they were built in the Soviet Union, then it was cheaper to build a new boat with better characteristics than to restore the technical readiness of the old. As an example, the series of ships of the 667 project, the ships of which from "A" to "BDRM" have huge differences in combat power, with a similar energy installation.
  24. alone
    alone 16 December 2013 21: 43 New
    +3
    Actually, it's time to conduct an examination of all submarines, and those that can be used, restored and put into operation. Otherwise you will have to read such messages for a long time and arrange funeral services for boats.
  25. undusk
    undusk 16 December 2013 21: 58 New
    +2
    Most likely, due to the high cost of repairs in terms of technical condition, the mechanisms and devices of the submarine will be used as spare parts for restoring the technical readiness of ships being repaired in the future. This is how the NSR "Zvezdochka" in Severodvinsk is still operating when the technical readiness of the ships of Project 667BDRM is restored, when equipment and spare parts are used from the Project 667A (ie, produced in the 70s). The repair process is accelerated as there is no need to wait until the equipment of the ship being repaired is restored, but it is possible to install the previously repaired from the dismantled one.
  26. pl675
    pl675 17 December 2013 00: 50 New
    +1
    perhaps this is the most successful -
    / low-noise / high-speed / universal project of our pl -
    I would think a hundred times before the cut - this is advice to the saw cutters -
    here it is, it’s hard to come up with a better case for deep modernization.
  27. Omskgasmyas
    Omskgasmyas 17 December 2013 07: 04 New
    +1
    The condition of ships built back in the USSR is close to critical, despite repairs. Have you noticed that in the long voyages of our ships the tug is always included in the group? And for the old submarines we have no submarine tugs. And an accident under water is an order of magnitude more dangerous than an accident on a surface ship.
    So the old lady was written off - and thank God.
    Py.Sy. I can imagine how many maremans who served in the 90 and 00 on such submarines, which never went to sea, rubbed their girls about long trips under the ice of Antarctica. bully
  28. undusk
    undusk 17 December 2013 21: 12 New
    +2
    The ships of this project generally have no developed documentation for the production of secondary repairs. He didn’t plan it from the building. The first ships of the series differ (not for the better) from the subsequent ones, because they underwent testing of their construction, amendments were made to the technical documentation. Alternatively, when dismantling ship equipment, the technology for repairing large-site components will be clarified or even developed. And the fact that everything that could be carried away on the steamer does not need to go to the grandmother. It is now being repaired and reinstalled, and during the Union - the old spare parts, pumps, compressors in the trash. In the know that the repaired ships go almost without the main spare parts? There are only spare parts for new equipment, but empty old boxes. The old spare parts factory does not restore, it is problematic to restore it through the fleet technical service, because It has been a long time since its use and the papers for its cancellation have either disappeared, or no one has executed them, and due to this spare parts in the 90s and 2000s, sailors provided access to the sea, worked out the linearity of crews and saved submarines . Of course, not all divisions had a heartache for the Fleet, there are examples when it was easier to put everything on a joke and, while sitting in the office, ensure career growth.