Military Review

60 years ago the first nuclear submarine was launched

26
January 21 1954, exactly 60 years ago, the submarine fleet took a big step forward. On this day, the world's first nuclear submarine descended from the shipyard Groton in Connecticut. The launch of the boat was personally attended by President Dwight Eisenhower. The boat was named "Nautilus" in honor of the submarine from the science fiction novel by Jules Verne, which was written in 1870 year. Currently, the boat has been converted into a museum of submarine forces of the US Navy, it is moored to eternal parking in the harbor of Groton. Every year the boat is visited by hundreds of thousands of tourists.


For the first time the famous French writer Jules Verne popularized the idea of ​​using a submarine in combat in his famous novel “20 Thousand Leagues Under the Sea”. Prior to that, Leonardo da Vinci, a famous Renaissance genius, reflected on such a ship. In Jules Verne's novel 1870, a submarine called the “Nautilus” was described, which could destroy surface ships with the help of a special ram - a metal “tusk” that was placed on the bow. In the science fiction novel, neither torpedoes nor any other weapon, which could be placed on board the boat.

It is worth noting that attempts to build a submarine have quite a long history. The first operating model of such a vessel was built in 1620, the Dutch engineer Cornelius van Drebelbel on the orders of the British King James. The boat was built in London and successfully tested in the Thames. That submarine was rowing. In our country, attempts were made to build such a ship under Peter I. But the real flowering of the submarine fleet waited only by the beginning of the First World War. At this time, there were massively submarines equipped with a diesel engine, which could be used on the surface, and an electric motor intended for movement under water. The diesel engine of the boats was connected to a generator that generated the electricity needed to recharge the boat batteries.

60 years ago the first nuclear submarine was launched

The accelerated pace of development of submarines during the First World War led to the fact that this class of warships turned into a very formidable weapon at sea. In total, during World War I, 600 submarines of the warring countries sank 55 large warships (cruisers and battleships), 105 destroyers, and 33 submarines. During World War II, the submarine fleet reached even greater prosperity and power and was actively used in all sea communications.

After the end of World War II, the submarine fleet was waiting for a new era. Submarines equipped with a nuclear power plant appeared. The first nuclear submarine was built in the USA. January 21, 1954 the Nautilus boat was launched, and 8 months later it was put into service by the American fleet. The Nautilus submarine, with a total length of 97 meters and a width of 8,2 meters, had a displacement of more than four thousand tons. This submarine set a record (for the US Navy) of being under water without surfacing, and was also able to develop an underwater speed of 20 knots. In addition, this submarine was the first in history that managed to pass under the ice of the North Pole. It happened on August 3, 1958.

The history of the submarine "Nautilus"

In fact, the submarine was not named in honor of the literary "Nautilus", but in honor of another American submarine - USS Nautilus (SS-168), which took part in the battles of World War II. The construction of the submarine of the new class was led by Admiral Hyman G. Rikover, who was known in the USA as the “father of the nuclear navy”. The American submarine "Nautilus" became the first nuclear submarine in the world, later a whole class of American submarines began to be called that.


Immediately after entering the submarine into the US Navy, it was established that the radar and anti-submarine aircraft, which played a very large role in the fight against submarines during World War II, were ineffective in the fight against this boat. The ability of the PLA to quickly change the depth of the dive and move quickly, as well as being submerged for a long time, caused a review of the tactics of the submarine war.

Nautilus outwardly looked like German submarines of type XXI. PLA had the same rounded bow, body shape, it also used 2 screws. The boat had a large diameter - 8,2 meter, which gave a large amount of internal space. The submarine hull was partially double, with an extension for the installed reactor. The submarine consisted of a bow, crew quarters with a galley, a boat control center, a power plant and a steering part. The buoyancy reserve of the Nautilus PLA was equal to 16%. In the submerged position, the boat could reach the speed of the 23 node, in the surface position - the 20 nodes. The surface displacement of the ship is 4157 tons, the underwater displacement is 4222 tons. The longest is 97 meters. The total power installed on board the boat nuclear power plant was 13 800 HP

The armament of the submarine consisted of 6 torpedo tubes of caliber 533 mm, the boat had 26 torpedoes to them. When building a submarine, the possibility of installing RGM-6 Regulus missiles on board was considered, but because of the very high complexity of this project, it was decided to stop working on it. The crew of the submarine "Nautilus" consisted of 13 officers and 92 sailors.


As with any ship of a fundamentally new class, not everything went smoothly with the Nautilus boat. Almost immediately, unsolvable problems arose with the submarine, the largest of which was a terrible noise, the cause of which was the strong oscillations of an unidentified kind. The waves that the Nautilus created caused vibrations of the boat structures with a frequency around 180 Hz, which dangerously approached the values ​​of the hull's vibration. The coincidence of these vibrations could lead to resonance and destruction of the submarine.

In addition, it was possible to establish a very high vibration of the ship hull when moving at a speed of more than 16 nodes. The noise, which was created already at the speed of 8 knots, and the vibration were an obstacle to the normal launch and control of torpedoes. At the speed of 15-17 nodes, people on board were forced to talk using a shout (otherwise they would not hear each other). Such a high noise level made the sonar useless already at the speed of the 4 node. After that, the submarine became deaf, moreover, such a noise very much unmasked the submarine. All of this was gained during the operation of the negative experience of American engineers took into account when developing boats following projects.

A rather interesting story is connected with the submarine "Nautilus". 3 August 1958, the ship set a record. Having passed 3400 km approximately in 100 hours of navigation, the submarine was the first in history to reach the North Pole of the Earth. American submariners passed under the ice of the Arctic at a depth of about 100 m. At the same time, such a journey required a long preparation from the crew and the ship. It was possible to carry out a campaign only from the 5 th attempt. The crew encountered the greatest difficulties during the passage of the Bering Strait: the depth of the lower edge of the ice in the strait reached 18 meters. During the first attempt to pass through the strait, the boat was forced to turn back due to lack of clean water between the ice field and the bottom of the strait. The second attempt was successful, and the boat, breaking the strait, along the coast of Alaska, passed to the North Pole. 3 August for the first time in the history of the submarine fleet the boat crossed the North Pole and returned to the shores of Greenland.


Those years were years of continuous technological race of the two superpowers during the Cold War. Americans by all means tried to "rehabilitate" because of the space satellite launched by the USSR, which became the first artificial satellite of the Earth. Overtaking the USSR was a matter of honor for Americans, well, and in what exactly to overtake, it had no fundamental significance for the USA. As a result, the US military were able to take the 1-e place in the submarine race, although the USSR did not officially acknowledge the fact that the Nautilus PLA was passing in the territorial waters of the USSR in the Arctic.

Total submarine "Nautilus" set several records for submarines. The main of them is considered to be continuous scuba diving, which lasted more than 90 hours. Being under water, the boat passed 1213 miles (2250 km). PLN "Nautilus" was in service until the 1972 year, after which it began to be used exclusively for educational purposes, and 6 June 1985, converted into a museum.

Today, 5 states of the world possess nuclear submarines of their own designs - these are Russia, the USA, France, the United Kingdom and China. On arms of these countries is more than 100 modern nuclear submarines. Another country that possesses such weapons was India, which in 2012 received its first nuclear submarine of the 971 “Schuka-B” project - leased from Russia for 10 years.

Information sources:
http://www.calend.ru/event/4378
http://www.vmireinteresnogo.com/article/the-first-atomic-submarine-nautilus
http://www.istpravda.ru/chronograph/1812
http://ru.wikipedia.org
Author:
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. leks
    leks 17 January 2014 09: 03
    +10
    This is the first boat, the first steps of the designers in the design of nuclear submarines, and the USSR did not go far behind just three years to create in 1958 - K-3 "Lenin Komsomol." And then it went off;
    The first British atomic atom HMS Dreadnought (S1963) was commissioned in 101
    The first French nuclear submarine Le Redoutable (S 1969) began fighting in 611
    In 1974, China commissioned its first nuclear submarine.
  2. Poppy
    Poppy 17 January 2014 12: 00
    +4
    By the way, you should pay attention to the shape: the Americans in this boat have not yet been able to move away from the stamps of diesel boats and made a shape for swimming on the surface - especially the nose, and ours immediately made a cigar-shaped hull shape, because nuclear submarine is more under water
    1. leks
      leks 17 January 2014 16: 43
      +2
      Live and learn, I didn't know about such features in boats, "cigar-shaped nose" Thank you enlightened.
    2. Kir
      Kir 18 January 2014 02: 39
      +1
      And forgive me, but the stamps have something to do with it, it seems that no one makes a secret that they "pushed" the reactor into the diesel case, unlike Ours, who, thanks to Genius Peregudov, immediately began to create the Ship under the maximum operation under water.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 20 January 2014 18: 22
        0
        Quote: Kir
        they "stuffed" the reactor into the diesel hull, unlike Ours, who, thanks to Genius Peregudov, immediately began to create the ship for maximum operation under water.

        Nautilus older K-3 "Leninsky Komsomol" for three years

        Nautilus was an experimental machine - they did not think about the fighting qualities of this submarine, the main thing is the use of nuclear warheads under water: advantages, problems and new opportunities.

        By the time the USSR went into the series of project 627A, America was already building a new series of multipurpose submarines of 6 Skipjacks and on their basis - 5 SSBN "J. Washington". In matters of submarine building, alas, we have always been catching up

        USS Skipjack (SSN-585)
    3. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 20 January 2014 18: 14
      +1
      Quote: Poppy
      the Americans in this boat were not yet able to move away from the stamps of diesel boats and made a form for swimming on the surface - especially the bow

      Especially considering that all boats with a "cigar-shaped" silhouette are called "Albacor". In honor of the American USS Albacore (AGSS-569) - diesel-electric submarines built in 1952-53.
  3. moremansf
    moremansf 17 January 2014 12: 55
    0
    A new stage in the development of the submarine fleet began, and we achieved not bad results in this !!! A turning point in the history of the Soviet Morflot was the introduction of nuclear power plants into submarines in the 50 years. Thanks to this, they got almost unlimited swimming autonomy. By the 1961 year, the Russian fleet had 9 nuclear boats - 4 missile and 5 torpedo boats.
  4. invisibility
    invisibility 17 January 2014 19: 36
    +1
    Though kill, our boats are more beautiful!
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 17 January 2014 22: 07
      0
      Quote: invisible
      Though kill, our boats are more beautiful!

      Brutal, definitely. But 20 tons of water at the Shark is too much.
      1. Kir
        Kir 18 January 2014 02: 55
        0
        Excuse me, you are a shipbuilder specializing in underwater shipbuilding to say so ........ bust? If so, then explain how many nuclear submarines of this class should have optimal displacement.
        And the invisible one correctly said .... Our boats are more beautiful !, but I don’t see anything brutal in them (I know the translation from English).
        1. Old_kapitan
          Old_kapitan 18 January 2014 07: 52
          +3
          I'm sorry you are a shipbuilder specializing in underwater shipbuilding
          And what does this have to do with it? You don't have to be a shipbuilder to understand that with an increase in displacement, visibility increases in all conceivable ranges, which for submarines is not only extremely undesirable, but sometimes destructive. Further. Why do you think "Northwind" or even "Dolphin" is worse than "Shark"? 4 fewer missiles? So they still need to have time to shoot. Yes, and the "Ohio" has 4 more of them, with a significantly smaller surface and, especially, underwater displacement. Let's go further. Infrastructure and services. Did you see the 941 at the dock? I have seen. Almost half of the hull, not to mention the wheelhouse, sticks out of the open dock. It will not enter the covered one. A little bit serious work on inter-trip service - Polyarny will not accept, only to Severodvinsk, to the plant. But the plant was not built to service boats, it has other functions and tasks. This is all objective, but there is also a subjective factor: no country in the world has created and is not creating such monsters. You can, of course, blame everything on the traitor Gorbachev, not having particularly sinned against the truth, but from common thought you understand that it is not so simple. So beautiful is yes. I would even say - majestic. But is it advisable? I think no.
          1. Kir
            Kir 18 January 2014 11: 25
            0
            Thanks. Understood. But the expressions "....... no country", etc. according to your text have long been not an argument for me, We (this is not a mistake with a capital letter) have already lost a lot of things by the way the heads were nodding , They dont have? so we don't need it, well, and in the return line there, we have. Yes, and forgive with all the real Respect to you, the expression "... I think not." speaks only about your personal, but by no means objective, explanation, or if you are right, there is at least an error in the approach to the creation of this Cruiser, and at the maximum .... sabotage?
            1. Old_kapitan
              Old_kapitan 18 January 2014 12: 05
              0
              there is at least a mistake in the approach to the creation of this cruiser, and to the maxim .... wrecking?
              Sabotage? Well this is unlikely. But the mistake ... Remember, in what country it was created. Boats baked like pies. Therefore, they thought: we need a dock - we’ll do it, special pier - we’ll build it! But when they involuntarily began to count denyuzhki, at the same time they realized that by creating this colossus they did not achieve any advantages over the adversary, rather, quite the contrary ... When we first saw this monster, our officers said that there would be no sense in this bandura. And it was in 81, long before the tag and his madhouse. And they looked into the water.
              1. mine
                mine 18 January 2014 15: 01
                -1
                no la-la and "after-messages"
                for the 70x situation, the project was absolutely adequate
                1. the demand for a sharp decrease in the upshift required displacement
                2. it again worked to ensure high missile readiness in the Arctic - both due to the ability to break thick ice, and through the use of SLBMs with solid propellant rocket engines
                3. the project had very high unification with other projects of the Navy and Strategic Missile Forces
                4. its displacement is not as much as it is usually written
                5. The possibility of realizing what happened as a BDM in the 70 of the year was far from obvious
                1. dv-v
                  dv-v 19 January 2014 04: 46
                  -1
                  1. It was enough to move away from the long strange requirement of 25% buoyancy. and, of course, two-reactor and two-shaft.
                  2. with 667th missiles in the Arctic did not shoot, did not patrol?))
                  3. with 667, in connection with which the question is - why? lacked, those in the Navy went out of service due to deterioration or because of the disgusting situation with the repair? and the Strategic Missile Forces - is rsm-52 unified? yah? and how much, in fact, has the RP been operating in the navy? and in the states, for comparison? such rich states, but the USSR was, well, much richer - could afford ...
                  4. 23200/48000 versus 16746/18750 - able to handle the calculation of the percentage difference? despite the fact that Ohio is still 4 rs longer with almost the same length. By the way, the BDRM was already catching the Americans by displacement.
                  5. the increase in the operational culture with the existing ones, with the preparation for a better leap, was just obvious - it was at that time that the beginnings of the ashore began to be developed, the homunculus of the 941st pure political and apparatus games without regard to calculating the consequences for the real economy of the country and military tasks. Incidentally, Boreas - single-shaft, single-reactor, half-shell.
                  1. Old_kapitan
                    Old_kapitan 19 January 2014 05: 07
                    0
                    they didn’t shoot with 667-s missiles in the Arctic, didn’t patrol them?))
                    Furthermore. The opponent stuttered something about the "Shark" ascent through the ice. He probably doesn’t know that when the Akula was still undergoing testing, in July 1981, we, on the K-447 of project 667B, surfaced, breaking the ice and fired a 2-rocket salvo at the Kura range.
                    1. mine
                      mine 19 January 2014 05: 25
                      -2
                      Quote: Old_Kapitan
                      He probably doesn’t know that when the Akula was still undergoing testing, in July 1981, we, on the K-447 of project 667B, surfaced, breaking the ice and fired a 2-rocket salvo at the Kura range.

                      I know more than that
                      as well as the fact that the parameters of rocket readiness and stealth at 667 (including BDRM) were much lower than 941
                    2. dv-v
                      dv-v 19 January 2014 15: 45
                      0
                      to everything else, there is also a banal hamlo with which there is nothing to talk about - I suspect that not only the iron did not sniff, the army only saw through the monitor and saw through the box.

                      I didn’t even say that one decrease per reactor-turbine-turbine-turbine-gas turbine-turbo-shaft-propeller bundle simply physically reduces the noise of the pl by two times.)) in my memory, I went out to sea with one side (I was the most navigable in the division - they were sent to exits constantly) once or twice, but BS - strictly only two!
                      1. mine
                        mine 19 January 2014 20: 50
                        -1
                        Quote: dv-v
                        I didn’t even say that one decrease per reactor-GTs-turbine-GTZ-shaft-screw bundle simply physically reduces the noise of the pl by two times

                        she is not just increased, and so the "azukhi" in the Pacific Ocean were "caught" by the SOSUS for 2000 km!
                        "specialist" had enough ...
                        Quote: dv-v
                        bs - strictly only two!

                        so when the Stirlitz reported it, they went to the BS "on two legs" (despite the fact that the resource was flying)
                      2. dv-v
                        dv-v 20 January 2014 04: 05
                        -1
                        Are you impassibly dull? I wrote about duplication due to uncertainty about reliability, and there were reasons. in my memory, when exiting, there was a double drop in both sides.

                        I remind you that there was no sausage on the quiet one.
                      3. mine
                        mine 20 January 2014 04: 18
                        -1
                        Quote: dv-v
                        I wrote about duplication due to uncertainty about reliability, and there were reasons. in my memory, when exiting twice, there was a drop in the az of both sides


                        reliability - a separate conversation
                        incl. for this reason, 667A walked "on one leg" for a long time (and it was mistakenly believed that secrecy was higher) - they saved a resource
                        after the information about the real "secrecy" of this regime came (and the problem was precisely "broken leg") - went to two

                        drop in AZ? think ...
                        "2 times"? Only?

                        well, after YOUR passage
                        Quote: dv-v
                        I remind you that there was no sausage on the quiet one.

                        I don’t see the subject of conversation with YOU at all
                        learn first ;)
              2. mine
                mine 19 January 2014 05: 15
                -2
                1. Tell me dear people, and ice without a large margin of buoyancy, how are you going to break? (yes so so that SLBM can be launched).
                For 949 and 941, you propose to develop a completely different nuclear power plant (instead of unified for the entire 3 generation)?
                2. 667 in the Arctic patrolled and fired. With stealth and missile readiness stealth parameters are much lower than 941
                3. Perhaps YOU are not vkurse, but for a year or two the series of the CHP RPK, alas, do not "tune".
                RDTT 1 stage was unified with BR BZHRK
                4. Shove 48000 yourself. 941 doesn't even have that.
                5. Better keep quiet about Borey, maybe you will pass for a clever one - YOU have not read anything about him except "Pionerskaya Zorka"
                1. dv-v
                  dv-v 20 January 2014 03: 53
                  0
                  1. Once again, "expert" Boreans, do you have calculations of the effects of buoyancy on breaking through the hole?
                  Unfortunately, the reliability of the GEM with the levels of operational culture was such that duplication had its own reasons. which in no way reduces the demands on designers and industry - let's see how things go with the Boreas.
                  2. what nonsense about missile readiness ?! bring digits.
                  3. Do you even understand what you are writing? if about "adjust", then:

                  tk-208 commissioning - 12.12.81g.
                  k-407, the last bdrm, fly fly, 27.11.90/XNUMX/XNUMX !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                  and in general, where does the unification of the first steps? and where ?!
                  4. shove yourself - until such numbers are everywhere, then the way it is - I do not believe in green men until they are presented to me.
                  6. Judging by your knowledge, you have not mastered the "pioneer dawn" either - this is a radio broadcast that I listened to during my pioneering days. and read - "pioneer truth". however, my Russian is also better than yours.
                  1. mine
                    mine 20 January 2014 04: 11
                    0
                    1. Forgive me, if YOU had a two in physics at school, then at least look at the photos of the Amov and Aglov submarines at the Pole - is it really possible to shoot missiles with their "architecture"?
                    With regard to specific numbers - the forum is superfluous.
                    2. Is rocket readiness for YOU is rubbish? Or are you just did not understand what was going on?
                    3. YOU are talking about?
                    4. I see - read "Murzilki" further. For grandchildren.
                    Taking into account clauses 1, 2, 4, YOUR moaning for "knowledge" is nothing but belay (in relation to YOU ​​do not cause)
                  2. dv-v
                    dv-v 20 January 2014 09: 36
                    -1
                    you are unlearned not only in Russian.
                    in physics, by the way, I have "excellent".
                    unlike you, I was not only in many missile training attacks on the GCP on schedule, but also in practical shooting. even if you were suddenly at the 949th, although I have doubts - rather the 971th, you don’t own the topic of conversation.
                    thirdly, re-read your third previous one - you still have memory problems.
                    4. no memory, no knowledge. see the beginning of the message.
                  3. mine
                    mine 20 January 2014 11: 53
                    -3
                    Quote: dv-v
                    you are an ignoramus not only in Russian

                    I apologize for the Russian - the cost of working with a PDA
                    Quote: dv-v
                    in physics, by the way, I have "excellent".

                    that's it - in quotation marks
                    YOU have already "successfully demonstrated" your "knowledge" belay
                    Quote: dv-v
                    I was not only in many missile training attacks on the GCP on schedule, but also in practical shooting

                    apparently in the role "ZAMA"
                    did you raise the l / s "polymorsos" and "shoot the booming ones"? wink
                    YOUR ignorance of elementary questions (for example SOSUS in THAT) as though speaks ...
                    Quote: dv-v
                    even if suddenly you were at 949

                    "even if suddenly" I was not only there, but also engaged in the development of new tactical techniques (including the use of KRO)
                  4. dv-v
                    dv-v 21 January 2014 05: 52
                    +1
                    according to the rules of the Russian language, the replacement of a digital assessment is written exactly in quotation marks. those. no childish excuses cover up the evidence of your ignorance, nor the ability to read, write. as for your banal rudeness - it seems that you are generally not able to adequately participate in discussions.

                    Behind the sim - happily stay.
                  5. mine
                    mine 21 January 2014 08: 30
                    -1
                    So about the deputy (i.e. YOU), I was not mistaken? wink
                    Go zamulya, learn "valve device" :)
                    this is the maximum that you are capable of on the subject under discussion.
                    And their "murzilki" - to the grandchildren
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. atalef
      atalef 19 January 2014 15: 50
      0
      Quote: mina
      1. the demand for a sharp decrease in the upshift required displacement

      Controversial statement
      Quote: mina
      it again worked to ensure high missile readiness in the Arctic - both due to the ability to break thick ice, and through the use of SLBMs with solid propellant rocket engines

      In general, ice is not broken by cutting, but by an air puzzler
      Quote: mina
      the project had very high unification with other projects of the Navy and Strategic Missile Forces

      Didn't have
      Quote: mina
      its displacement is not as much as it is usually written

      What is greater or at least equal to it?
      1. mine
        mine 19 January 2014 20: 46
        -1
        1. The fact that the requirements of USP displacement requirements is a fact
        2. What does the "cabin" have to do with it - the force with which it is broken ayamo depends on the volume of the tanks
        3. Had - high unification of nuclear power plants, ACS and RES with other projects
        4. 949A not much less
        also in the "junk" offer?
  5. Kir
    Kir 18 January 2014 17: 39
    0
    Sometimes it seems that we lived in different places, for example, I lived in the State of the USSR, is this one and the other was a member of the CPSU? probably yes, but if so, when did your conscience sleep, or does she always sleep with you?
    1. mine
      mine 18 January 2014 20: 15
      -1
      Quote: Kir
      Sometimes it feels like we lived in different places,

      What did you want to say?
  • mine
    mine 18 January 2014 14: 58
    -1
    we need to talk not about "conceivable ranges" but real physical fields
    reduction in TSS required the allocation of significant displacement
    these project numbers are known

    besides, 941 is not so "monster" (at least in comparison with "Ohio" and 949A)
    1. dv-v
      dv-v 19 January 2014 04: 59
      0
      23200/48000
      16746/18750
      14700/24000
      I’ll also add bdrm
      11740/18200

      with arithmetic you are very bad or "memory fails" - can you cope with the problem of numbers?

      as for the "allocated displacement", then they got by on the Borea, finally throwing out the second reactor, turbine, itydy shaft, and moving away from the double-hull. and nothing, the end of the world did not come.
      1. mine
        mine 19 January 2014 05: 23
        -4
        1. Boy, I know the real TTX 941, and show your bullshit numbers elsewhere
        2. You don’t know anything about Borea. PMC
  • dv-v
    dv-v 18 January 2014 11: 33
    0
    Of course, busting - what does the Northwind look like now?)) and the matter is not in four additional rhs, but in the rn themselves, first and foremost, dumb shortsightedness that the chief designer, that the commander in chief, that the state plan with the political bureau.
    1. mine
      mine 18 January 2014 15: 03
      -1
      Quote: dv-v
      stupid shortsightedness that the chief designer, that the commander in chief, that the state plan with the Politburo.

      no need to drive
      there were quite adequate and reasonable people
      Kovalev - especially
      Yes. and he himself considered the creation of these boats a mistake - but taking into account the "afterthought" of recent years
      I repeat - based on the information available in 70x - it was an absolutely adequate project
      1. dv-v
        dv-v 19 January 2014 04: 22
        0
        well, well - how was he more adequate than the bdrm ?!

        here they already talked about his impenetrability and other operational troubles, and if we were talking about information of that time, then just look at how the Yankees approached Ohio, and not authorize the undoubtedly talented tricks of Kovalev to make a monster out of two 667s.

        yes, it is extremely adequate to drive six "inexpensive" water carriers through the stump-deck of the exploited galaxy of 667s - the economy is so perlo, they did not know what else to spend this kind of ...
        1. mine
          mine 19 January 2014 05: 02
          -3
          1. declare your horse
          or dog
          2. "just look at Ohio"
          watched
          can i build? can
          only now withdraw from SDvinsk after that it will NOT be
          3.Monsieur, before you carry your crap about the "stump-deck" to operation 667, read at least Lebedko
          1. dv-v
            dv-v 19 January 2014 15: 37
            0
            dear, unlike you, I served at 25 dpl 2 flpl - so stick your opinion from where they pulled out, hamlo.
            1. mine
              mine 19 January 2014 20: 40
              -1
              Quote: dv-v
              unlike you, I served on 25 dpl 2 dpl

              unlike YOU, I served in the same place, but on 10 dpl
              apparently the criteria of professionalism in 25 and 10 were different
              1. dv-v
                dv-v 20 January 2014 03: 23
                0
                noteworthy idiosyncrasy pattern:

                "unlike YOU, I served there."

                Do you understand what you wrote? Incidentally, I’ll include the Grammar-Nazi: unlike.

                and secondly, what are the criteria for professionalism in question, if you only saw strategists from the shore? especially since in my memory from the 10th in the north, where the 941sts were based, they fell only for the 949th stage. I’m not talking about the 971s, 949s — I wasn’t on them.
                and years of service? I'm still in the ussr.
                and the warhead?
                1. mine
                  mine 20 January 2014 03: 51
                  -2
                  Quote: dv-v
                  "Unlike YOU, I served there." Did you understand what you wrote?

                  and didn’t you learn to read the phrase to the end of YOU at school?

                  Quote: dv-v
                  in my memory from the 10 in the north, where the 941s were based,

                  xs that with YOUR memory, but in the north all life 11 was based dpl
                  10 - Kamchatka;)

                  Quote: dv-v
                  What criteria of professionalism are we talking about if you only saw strategists from the shore?

                  with what PTU-5 familiar with more than
                  including on practice
                  enough?
                2. dv-v
                  dv-v 20 January 2014 09: 27
                  0
                  I apologize for my French, but if you do not understand your own ignorance:

                  - I wrote "unlike you" before you answered that you served in the navy;
                  - thus, your response "unlike you" looks even more meaningless - in contrast to what, my service in the 2nd flpl tof? or are you seriously sure that mentioning the 10th saves the phrase from initial illiteracy?

                  I'm afraid your correction of your Russian occupation is futile beyond your age.

                  secondly, as I understand it, you were not in the north, i.e. The 941st didn’t see in your eyes, what are you trying to tell me about?

                  by the way, as well as about the 10th, it’s not particularly necessary - I had two countrymen there, but I’m not talking about that either - you don’t know how to write or read.
                3. mine
                  mine 20 January 2014 12: 00
                  -1
                  Quote: dv-v
                  were not in the north, i.e. 941s did not see in the eyes

                  was
                  saw
                  and not only winked
                  enough? wink
                  Quote: dv-v
                  and I don’t really need to talk about 10 - I’ve served two countrymen there,

                  "argument" is just "under the table"
            2. mine
              mine 20 January 2014 04: 26
              -1
              Quote: dv-v
              what are the criteria for professionalism

              tactical training of officers
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • mine
    mine 18 January 2014 14: 56
    -3
    Quote: sevtrash
    But 20 000 tons of water at the Shark - bust.

    no there is so much water
    much less
    "48" full underwater - a bike launched by Mormul, and has nothing to do with reality
    1. Kir
      Kir 18 January 2014 17: 33
      0
      Forgive me, but where did Mormul say that? Just from "The Atomic Underwater Epic .....", which I co-authored with two others (though I read it for a long time) I don't remember this.
  • mine
    mine 20 January 2014 12: 10
    -1
    Considering the illiterate babbling of some "Moreman" here, I posted a chapter from the book of Rear Admiral
    Lutskiy A.N. "For the strength of a solid body" "Combat patrol" - short and professional on the issues discussed.
    The same author has already been mentioned here http://topwar.ru/37080-o-protivotorpednoy-zaschite-rossiyskih-podvodnyh-lodok.ht
    ml
    Semi-literate hamsters (including and "naval") were noted there too
    1. mine
      mine 21 January 2014 08: 27
      0
      not yet posted on the site, link - http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/0/archive/1584/1584107.htm