Military Review

How many submarines did the yank have?

25



America ahead of the USSR for three years. In July, the 1958 of the year, when the first Russian atarin K-3 made the first movement towards the sea, the American Nautilus was already racing at full speed towards the North Pole.

But our apparent lag was in fact an advantage. Unlike the USS Nautilus, which was an experimental nuclear-powered icebreaker, the Soviet K-3 was a full-fledged warship — the ancestor of a series of multi-purpose SSNs from the 13.

Ellipsoid nose, optimized for movement under water. Advantage in the speed of the underwater course and depth of immersion. Large size and enhanced armament: initially it was planned to equip the boat with T-15 super-torpedos equipped with an 100 MT warhead, but in the end, the choice focused on eight standard TAs, with the possibility of using T-5 tactical nuclear torpedoes.

In comparison with the first Russian PLA, most of its American peers were expensive toys, unsuitable for combat missions:

- The Nautilus, the world's first PLA, was launched in 1954. She became the first ship to reach the North Pole (3 August 1958);

How many submarines did the yank have?


“The Sivulf, equipped with an experimental liquid metal coolant reactor, turned out to be a floating tomb: the ship was not able to confirm its calculated performance characteristics on tests, and, in addition, ditched part of its own crew. A year later, the dangerous and unreliable reactor with the liquid metal filter was replaced with a conventional one: the US Navy forever refused to use this type of YSU;

- "Skate" - a small series of 4 submarines, which were the post-war diesel-electric submarines "Teng" with a nuclear reactor;

- “Triton” - at the time of creation it was the largest and most expensive submarine in the world, with two nuclear warheads. The Triton was built as a boat of radar patrol, but in reality it became a demonstrator of military technology, having completed a round-the-world tour in 60 days in underwater position. I didn’t go into the series, remaining a “white elephant” fleet;

- “Halibat” is another “white elephant”. It was built as a carrier of Regul strategic cruise missiles, in the year 1965 was converted into a boat to perform special operations;

- "Tallibi" - the smallest in the world combat atarin underwater displacement 2600 tons. Despite its miniature size and low speed, it has been quite remarkable since. points of view. The only boat of its type.

The first truly serial submarine was Skipjack. The headboat entered service in 1959 year. The first American atomarins with the "Albacorov" form of the hull in the form of a body of revolution, ellipsoid nasal extremity and horizontal rudders on the sides of the wheelhouse. Total built six units. One of the boats, the USS Scorpion (SSN-588), disappeared without a trace in the Atlantic in 1968 (fragments of the Scorpion were later discovered at a depth of 3 km).


The wreckage of "Scorpion"

The next famous type was the "Tracher" - a series of 14 multipurpose submarine hunters. The lead boat, the USS Tresher (SSN-593), died tragically along with its crew during testing in the 1963 year. The remaining boats were renamed to the type "Permit" - on behalf of the next submarine of this type.

A truly breakthrough project was the "Stage" - a large series of multipurpose SSNs built in the number of 37 units (in service with the 1971 year). By this time, the Yankees finally came to the idea of ​​large-scale construction and unification of submarines. The main development vectors are reliability, reduction in the level of intrinsic noise and, once again, reliability. Considerable progress was made in hydroacoustics: “Stedzhen” became the first boat in the world with a spherical antenna GAS, which occupied the entire nose of the submarine ship.


USS Parche (SSN-683) is sent to the next "case"

However, the full unification did not work: nine submarines were longer than the rest by the 3 meter. In fact, the total number of “Stegedzhens” should be limited to 36 units. One of the last boats of the project - USS Parche (SSN-683) - was considered the “top secret” boat for performing special operations (theft of wreckage of Soviet aircraft and ballistic missiles from the ocean floor, breaking into submarine communication cables, covert reconnaissance). “Parche” had an additional 30-meter section of the hull with oceanographic equipment, external mounts for mini-submarines and a noticeable “hump” with electronic reconnaissance equipment - as a result, it has unrecognizably changed controllability, performance characteristics and compartment layout.

In parallel, the Yankees have built a couple of “white elephants” in serial “Stegedzhen”:

- “Narval” - experimental submarine equipped with a reactor with natural circulation of the coolant;

- "Glenard P. Lipscomb" - experimental submarine with a turboelectric GEM. The absence of traditional gearboxes (GTZA) made it possible to reduce the noise of the submarine, but the large size and lower speed of the Glenarad played against it: the boat with the turboelectric GEM remained in a single copy.


USS Glenard P. Lipscomb (SSN-685)

In 1976, Los Angeles appeared - the most numerous series of submarine nuclear ships ever built. 62 units. Not a single serious radiation accident in three decades of operation. Not a single lost boat. High-speed, low-noise "Moose" is considered the crown of the efforts of the "father" of the American submarine fleet - Admiral Hyman (Haim) Rickover. They - one of the few nuclear submarines, which happened to directly take part in hostilities.

However, even in the case of "Los Angeles", there is no need to talk about complete unification. As it is known, “Elks” were built in three large sub-series, each of which had noticeable differences. The first is a basic modification, multipurpose torpedo submarines (SSN-688). Starting from 1985, the second sub-series (VLS) went into the series - 12 vertical mines appeared in the forward part of the hull to launch the Tomahawk SLCM.

Finally, the latest 23 boats belong to the third sub-series (better known as 688i or "Improved Los Angeles"). This time, the Yankees went even further: the rudder wheels had disappeared from the boats, instead there were retractable rudders in the bow of the hull; the structure of the cabin was strengthened to ensure a safe ascent in the ice; The modernization of antennas and computers of the hydroacoustic complex, the boat was able to carry and put mines.


USS Albuquerque (SSN-706) - the first moose sub-series



USS Santa Fe (SSN-763) - representative of the third subseries

In fact, the first USS Los Angeles (SSN-688) and the last USS Cheyenne (SSN-773), which came into operation in 1996, were two completely different projects, united in words only by words.

The next attempt by the Americans to build a large series of underwater hunters (SSN-21 type “Sivulf”) suffered a complete fiasco - due to the end of the cold war, instead of the planned 30, only three “Sivulf” were built. The project index directly indicates the value of these boats - the real submarines of the XXI century. Even now, after 20 years, the SeaWolfs are still the most advanced submarines in the world.

Curiously, there are only two real “Sivulf”. The third, USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), is fundamentally different from its colleagues: it is longer by 30 meters and carries the Ocean Interface diving complex on board. As you may have guessed, Carter replaced the Parche special operations boat at the fighting post.

Instead of super-expensive "Sivulf" it was decided to build a series of simpler submarines - with "castrated" TTX and an orientation to local conflicts of low intensity. However, recent reports to Congress indicate that the simplification of the design did not help at all: the cost of Virginia-type submarines confidently exceeded 3 billion.


USS Virginia (SSN-774)

Despite belonging to a single project, "Virgins" are distinguished by a large variety of designs. Only among the first 12 launched submarines, experts distinguish three subseries. It is clear that this is not done from a good life: this is direct evidence of attempts to eliminate major problems identified during the operation of the first "Virginia" (primarily in the work of sonar). The result was:

- 1 block. Basic version (built 4 submarines).
- 2 block. New construction technology using large sections (built 6 submarines).
- 3 block. Spherical antenna gas replaced by the horseshoe-shaped Large Aperture Bow (LAB); 12 bow mines to launch "Tomahawks" replaced by two 6-charging mines of the new type (in the plans - 8 submarines).



The rest of the "Virgin" will be completed with even more serious changes in the design - for example, the 5 Block provides for the installation of the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) - a tie-in of the 10-meter section in the middle of the hull, with 40 "Tomahawks." Of course, by that time the SSC and the ship’s combat information system were evolving. In fact, this modification can be considered a separate project.

As a result, we managed to count 17 independent projects of multi-purpose PLA *, adopted by the overseas fleet - without taking into account their intermediate modifications (VLS, “Block-1,2,3 ...”, “long-hull”, etc.).

* Nautilus, Sivulf (old), Skate, Triton, Halibat, Tallibi, Skipjack, Trescher / Permit, Stage, Partche, Narval, “Glenard Lipscomb”, “Los Angeles”, “Superior Los Angeles”, “Sivulf” (new), “Carter” and “Virginia”.

No less interesting is the situation with strategic missile submarines. Their история 15 began on November 1960 of the year, when a nuclear submarine with ballistic missiles (SSBN) "George Washington" started to patrol the base in Scotland. The Western press immediately dubbed him the "Killer of Cities" - on board the 16 solid fuel "Polaris", capable of destroying life throughout the north-western part of the USSR. "Washington" became a formidable harbinger of a new round of the arms race, defining the appearance and layout of all subsequent SSBNs (SSBNs) on both sides of the ocean. Modern Boreas and Ohio carry a bit of the Washington heritage, continuing to use a similar layout of ammunition.



The first SSBN was impromptu on the basis of the Skipjack multipurpose PLA and initially bore the name of the deceased Scorpion. Over the next decade, the Yankees created another 4 SSBN project - each of them was a further step towards the evolution of Washington. It is curious that all the boats used the same type of reactor (S5W), but differed in size (each subsequent type in a big way), the material used to make the hull and the shape of its outlines, the level of intrinsic noise and weapons. The missiles were continuously improved: “Polaris A-1”, “Polaris A-3”, “Poseidon C-3”, some of the rocket carriers at the end of their careers received the “Trident-1 С4”.

Thus was born the squadron "41 on Guard of Freedom". All the rocket carriers carried the names of prominent American figures of the past.

- "George Washington" - 5 units;
- “Ethen Allen” - 5 units;
- “Lafayette” - 9 units;
- “James Madison” - 6 units (had few differences from the previous project, in reference books of the Soviet Navy were held like “Lafaate, the second sub-series”);
- "Benjamin Franklin" - 12 units.


USS Mariano G. Vallejo (SSBN-658). Missile carrier type "Benjamin Franklin"

The real headache of the Soviet commanders. It was these missile carriers that represented the main military threat to the existence of our state — because of their secrecy and multiplicity, it was not easy and essentially unreal to defend against them (however, the same was true of our SSBNs). “Defenders of Freedom” served faithfully and for a long time, demonstrating amazing combat capability: they managed two blue and golden crews to replace 80% of their time at sea, targeting missiles at industrial and military centers of the USSR.

Starting in the 80s, the Washington and Madison began to transfer the new generation of SSBNs, the Ohio. New boats were 2-3 times larger and much better than their ancestors. Armament - 24 solid-fuel submarine-launched "Trident-1" SLBMs (later re-equipped with the long-range Trident-2 D-2).

A total of 18 missile carriers of this type were built. Nowadays, within the framework of signed agreements on the limitation of strategic offensive arms, four Ohio were converted into shock boats with Tomahawk cruise missiles (there were two diving chambers up to 154 cruise missiles).



Since the beginning of the era of the nuclear submarine fleet, the US Navy had 59 strategic SSBNs built on 5 different projects (if we count Lafayette and Madison as one type). Plus - Ohio-based special operations boats (SSGN), which can be easily identified as a separate project.

Total - six projects SSBNs and derivatives based on them. Excluding the endless upgrades, upgrading to new types of missiles and the creation of unexpected impromptu (for example, one of the kind of "Franklin" - USS Kamehameha (SSBN-642) was converted into a boat for the delivery of combat swimmers and remained in this form in service until 2002 year) .

Underwater Zoo

6 projects of nuclear submarines and SSGNs. 17 multi-purpose SSN projects. Agree a lot. The facts show that the Yankees, like their Soviet colleagues, built ships apart. All plans, plans and concepts of using the fleet were copied several times.

And after that, someone dares to say that the underwater component of the Soviet Navy represented a disorderly collection of boats of various types? Many domestic sources still claim that the Russian Mongols built their fleets, horribly - built a bunch of different types of trash - and then did not know how to serve it. The number of projects almost 10 times the number of projects of US submarines.

In reality, nothing of the kind was observed: in the period from 1958 of the year to 2013, the 247 of nuclear submarines built according to 32 of various projects were adopted by the Navy of the USSR / Russia, including:

- 11 multi-purpose SSN projects;
- 11 projects of nuclear submarines with cruise missiles (SSGN);
- 10 strategic missile submarine projects (SSBN).

Of course, a knowledgeable reader will certainly remember about special-purpose atomarins: repeater boats, experimental, deep-water and other “Loshariki” - whole 9 projects! But it should be understood that most of them are test benches converted from serving submarines. The rest are ultra-small submarines and their carriers.

But if so, then it is worth considering all American impromptu - “Kamehameha” with combat swimmers, intermediate versions of “Los Angeles” with VLS, modification of “Virginia” Block-1,2,3,4,5. Then, do not forget to take into account the nuclear deep-water bathyscaphe NR-1 - and the weights index will rapidly shift towards the US Navy.

32 domestic project of nuclear submarines against American 23. The difference is not so great as to sound the alarm about the mental abilities of Russian engineers and military.

A somewhat larger number of projects is explained by a different concept of the use of the Navy. For example, the Yankees never had analogs of the domestic Skat and Anteyev, specialized boats equipped with long-range anti-ship missiles (instead, their absence was compensated for by the disparate family of aircraft carriers — the main striking force of the US Navy at sea).

Finally, we should not forget that many types of domestic boats were distinguished by relative simplicity and low cost of construction - comparing some of the “George Washington” with the K-19 (eg 658) is simply offensive to both of them. Therefore, the presence of two types of SSBNs instead of one SSBN is not good, but not as problematic as they are trying to present in our time.

Reproaches in the construction of super-expensive titanium boats and submarines equipped with liquid iron and liquid metal reactors — many of which have remained in a single copy — are just as groundless. Over the ocean, no less than we were “sinned” by creating controversial structures - as a result, the US Navy had a significant number of “white elephants”. The same two-reactor "Triton", in the creation of which there was no need. This whole mess is called technical search - engineers experienced trial and error method looking for the most efficient and balanced design.

Along the way, all of the above will dispel another myth - about the distorted path of development of the national fleet, which, allegedly, was not too keen on submarines. The Yankees also knew very well about the high combat qualities of nuclear submarines - and built them no less than we did. As a result, the fleets of both superpowers were equipped with the latest technology - with an equally well-developed surface and underwater component.


Transfer of cargo from a helicopter to the PLA "Triton"



"Tomahawks" instead of "Tridents"



Two launch shafts aboard the converted Ohio converted into airlock chambers for divers exit





As you know, the Yankees built their last diesel-electric boat in the 1959 year. But the cessation of construction did not mean a complete abandonment of the diesel-electric submarines - modernized by the GUPPY project, many diesel engines of the time of WWII and the first post-war years remained in service until the end of 1970's. The project itself GUPPY represented dozens of options for modernization - as a result, a whole “zoo” of diesel-electric submarines of various types was born. In the photo - a typical American base, berth with diesel-electric submarines, 1960-e


Cabin SSBB "J. Washington"



"Sea Wolf"! (USS Seawolf)



The bridge of the submarine "Toledo" (type "Los Angeles")
Author:
25 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Crang
    Crang 20 January 2014 09: 59
    -1
    The naval power of the USSR at one time overshadowed even this armada.
  2. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 20 January 2014 10: 18
    0
    I wonder why in the photo "Albuquerque" at the pier is surrounded by booms?
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 20 January 2014 10: 51
      +9
      Quote: Vladimirets
      I wonder why in the photo "Albuquerque" at the pier is surrounded by booms?

      So that the leakage of any liquids and debris from the boat would not lead to pollution of the port. I don’t know how now, but when I first left the Golden Horn in the mid-90s, the state of the water surface of the Vladivostok port was extremely depressing, a layer of fuel oil and garbage created such an amber ... In short, environmental requirements ...
      1. Santa Fe
        20 January 2014 15: 22
        +5
        Quote: Nayhas
        the state of the water surface of the Vladivostok port was extremely depressing, a layer of fuel oil and garbage created such an amber ...

        "Tears of Arizona" - oil still flowing from the mechanisms of the battleship lying at the bottom. Pearl Harbor, Hawaii



        The "Great Garbage Patch" stretching from the coast of California to Southeast Asia (I don’t believe everything is that bad - but there is garbage and everything is littered, it’s a fact)


        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 20 January 2014 18: 36
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          "Tears of Arizona" - oil still flowing from the mechanisms of the battleship lying at the bottom. Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

          Well, as if the Americans didn’t have time to pump out fuel before drowning, download the sub-shale water and oil from machines and mechanisms ... Now, when artificial coral reefs (Americans) are made from old ships, they lick it almost with their tongue.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          I don’t believe that everything is so bad - but there is rubbish and everyone litter, this is a fact

          Not without it, but the American and European port water areas are clean (according to the stories), also Japanese and Chinese (surprisingly), I saw it myself ...
          Yes, and clogging with household garbage and fuel oil are different things ...
          PS: I heard that Americans and Europeans don’t dump feces at sea at all, like there’s no drainage overboard even at the fecal tank. We merged, after chemical processing of course, but merged ...
          1. Old_kapitan
            Old_kapitan 20 January 2014 19: 14
            +3
            even the fecal tank has no overflow drain.
            Here I hardly believe in it. Here we have: the crew is an average of 120 people, autonomy - 60 days. Well this is how much shit to carry! And where to collect it? In catering instead of hammered products? :)
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 20 January 2014 19: 21
              +1
              Quote: Old_Kapitan
              Well this is how much shit to carry! And where to collect it? In catering instead of hammered products? :)

              Well, I had in mind the civilian fleet, I was not in the military, an ordinary dry cargo ship ... But most likely it is dumped on supply ships when receiving goods ... The sub-shale waters are for sure.
            2. postman
              postman 21 January 2014 00: 22
              0
              Quote: Old_Kapitan
              Well this is how much shit to carry! And where to collect it?

              marine sanitation devic (MSV) / ​​system itself and vacuum collection (VC) / vacuum collection.
              The Coast Guard classifies MSV into three types:
              Type I -flow (only on small vessels up to 65 ft), output: No visible floating solid
              feces, the concentration of intestinal bacteria does not exceed 1000 to 100 milliliters
              Type II - flow-through with disinfection (any vessels), output: kb 200 in 100 milliliters, Not more than 150 milligrams of the total number of suspended substances per liter
              Type III-wastewater is stored until it can be disposed of by coastal services or at sea (more than three miles from the coast)/ 33 CFR 159,53 (s) ELECTRONIC CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

              I read somewhere that they were going to evaporate (for the USS and atomic carriers), press and unload them in briquettes ashore.
          2. Santa Fe
            20 January 2014 20: 11
            +1
            Quote: Nayhas
            I heard that Americans and Europeans do not dump feces at all

            Quote: Nayhas
            American and European port waters clean

            Of course, they merge homogeneously outside the port, away into the ocean



  3. bvi1965
    bvi1965 20 January 2014 10: 41
    +1
    Quote: Krang
    The naval power of the USSR at one time overshadowed even this armada.


    I agree. But there were people in Russia, everyone knows them, who, instead of converting the strategists into multi-purpose ones like the Americans, put them on the needles. and now where we are.
    1. Santa Fe
      20 January 2014 15: 38
      +1
      Quote: bvi1965
      instead of converting the strategists into multi-purpose ones like the Americans, they put them on needles. and now where we are.

      But we did not have SSBNs suitable for conversion into multi-purpose ones. As there were no missiles similar to the tactical Tomahawk, modules like Dry Deck Shelter and specific tasks for such nuclear powered ships.

      Everything that was written off in the 90s, with the rarest exception, was obsolete rubbish. Shark wasn't junk, but it was originally a stillborn project.

      Shark anchor. victory of technology over common sense
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 20 January 2014 17: 19
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Shark wasn't junk, but it was originally a stillborn project.

        This boat is for the empire, and not for the country, it is not clear what is guided and without a national idea, where most of the leaders have real estate in the territory of a potential adversary and train their children there.
        Any labels can be attached: it does not fit in the ocean, a stillborn child, the victory of technology over reason, etc.
        Nevertheless, the boats were fast and maneuverable and surpassed the Dolphin project 667BDRM in low noise.
        After the strategic submarines of the Shark type were accepted into the combat forces of the USSR Navy, the United States agreed to sign the OSV-2 agreement proposed by it, and the United States allocated funds under the Joint Threat Reduction program to utilize half of the Sharks
        How they helped us.
        Thank you very much for the article, I liked it, read it with interest.
      2. lab29
        lab29 9 February 2014 14: 45
        0
        This is a Chinese marriage made for "Gorshkov" pl. Egorova in Severodvinsk. I live here. Shark has no anchors and the boat is very good !!!
  4. Ivan Petrovich
    Ivan Petrovich 20 January 2014 10: 41
    +2
    and to write "atomarina" not in the navy, but in the journalist way
  5. Professor
    Professor 20 January 2014 10: 47
    0
    Article + hi
    Speaking about "expensive" and "not expensive" submarines, direct comparison of the cost is not correct. It is necessary to compare the labor intensity of production in h / h and the cost of materials. This concerns "expensive" American and "cheap" Soviet ones.
    Instead of super-expensive "Sivulf" it was decided to build a series of simpler submarines - with "castrated" TTX and an orientation to local conflicts of low intensity. However, recent reports to Congress indicate that the simplification of the design did not help at all: the cost of Virginia-type submarines confidently exceeded 3 billion.

    The author forgot to mention the length of the Virginia production cycle, how long it takes to build it.
    1. Santa Fe
      20 January 2014 16: 00
      +2
      Quote: Professor
      The author forgot to mention the length of the Virginia production cycle, how long it takes to build it.

      With pleasure, prof

      Here, for example, the newest - USS Minnesota (SSN-783)
      Laid down in 2011, launched and handed over to the fleet in 2013. But these figures do not reflect reality.

      The boat was "laid down" in 2011 not in the form of an empty shell of a strong hull, and in the form of four finished sections, the production of which was conducted since 2008 year. It only remained to connect them together - they managed for 2 of the year.
      And this does not take into account long-lead-time materials, the production of which begins even earlier.

      As a result, the boat arrived in Norfolk in September 2013, and after a series of tests went to PSA (Post-Shakedown Availability) - completion and modernization, elimination of all identified deficiencies during the first months of operation. In Russia, such a boat would hardly have been put into service in 2013 - it would not have passed the ZHI / GOS (although the story with the Nevsky and Severodvink hints about the opposite. The degradation is increasing).
      1. Professor
        Professor 20 January 2014 17: 01
        -1
        Thanks again for the article. good
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Laid down in 2011, launched and handed over to the fleet in 2013. But these figures do not reflect reality.

        This is a normal practice accepted in the USSR. In order to lay the keel / section / shell on the slipway, it must be done in another workshop. For bourgeoisie, the start of a project is usually considered to be a money transfer to a contractor (down-payment).

        How relatively labor intensive? Is there any data?
        1. Santa Fe
          20 January 2014 20: 26
          -1
          Quote: Professor
          For bourgeoisie, the start of a project is usually considered to be a money transfer to a contractor (down-payment).

          I wonder why you asked about the length of the production cycle of Virginia.

          And what is the situation called when a boat with half the non-functioning systems that has not yet been tested is transferred to the fleet in order to be returned to the shipyard in six months? No other than fraud.
          Quote: Professor
          How relatively labor intensive? Is there any data?

          1,5 times the difference in displacement
          16 Polarisov against 3 R-13 missiles in the wheelhouse (the mass of the SLBMs are the same)
          Such "subtle matters" as GAK, navigation systems, communications - it is even meaningless to compare. K-19 should be 2 times simpler and cheaper than Washington - both in terms of materials and labor costs.
          1. Professor
            Professor 20 January 2014 21: 28
            -1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            I wonder why you asked about the length of the production cycle of Virginia.

            AFAIR stamp them fast.

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            1,5 times the difference in displacement

            Yes, I'm talking about the Soviet against the American ... request
            1. Santa Fe
              20 January 2014 21: 44
              -1
              Quote: Professor
              AFAIR stamp them fast.

              decode afair
              Quote: Professor
              Yes, I'm talking about Soviet versus American

              What am I talking about?
              1. Professor
                Professor 20 January 2014 22: 03
                -1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                decode afair

                As Far As I Remember (how much memory serves me)
                Virginia is built in a modular way when the compartment is assembled outside the housing and driven into the housing already assembled.

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                What am I talking about?

                That is, there is no data on h / h?
                1. Santa Fe
                  21 January 2014 00: 18
                  -1
                  Quote: Professor
                  As Gar As I Remember

                  No, we don’t swear
                  Quote: Professor
                  Virginia is built in a modular way when the compartment is assembled outside the housing and driven into the housing already assembled.

                  Did it somehow help reduce the cost and construction time?
                  Quote: Professor
                  That is, there is no data on h / h?

                  those. facts such as smaller sizes and five times less ammunition - is not an argument for you?
                  as is the fact that George Washington was built longer for 10 months?
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 21 January 2014 11: 07
                    -1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    No, we don’t swear

                    Already swearing, only in Russian it sounds like this: NMNIP (As far as I remember correctly), NSA (As far as I Remember)
                    Internet Abbreviations

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Did it somehow help reduce the cost and construction time?

                    As far as I understand, it helped. Steamboats of this class and equipment used to build longer and more expensive.


                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    those. facts such as smaller sizes and five times less ammunition - is not an argument for you?
                    as is the fact that George Washington was built longer for 10 months?

                    No, not an argument. You need to compare objects of about the same class and then say: Here it’s more expensive, but here it’s cheaper.
                    1. yehat
                      yehat 21 January 2014 14: 21
                      0
                      construction time increases anything. The longer it takes to build, the more expensive.
                      After the war, the Americans had a streamlined system of modular assembly and there was an industry of suppliers, which made it possible to highly parallelize construction and thereby reduce the cost of the final result.
                      If upon the fact of the project their boats cost and are noticeably more expensive, then due to the developed diversification in the industry, they noticeably reduced the difference.
                      And our submarines were often built in small batches at the same enterprise, so long-term construction, moral aging, and a bunch of other pleasures.
                    2. The comment was deleted.
                    3. Santa Fe
                      21 January 2014 19: 25
                      -1
                      AFAIR NYAP! NYC NYU JUst 2 b clear! ...
                      --- message was not delivered according to communication failure ---
                      Quote: Professor
                      As far as I understand, it helped.

                      Let's put it this way:

                      All the advantages of new technologies, modular assembly, unification and large-scale construction turned out to be offset by the greed of top-management of shipyards.
                      The cost of modest Virginias, which have always been positioned as a "castrated" SeaWolfe, has now exceeded $ 3 billion and continues to grow
                      Quote: Professor
                      Steamboats of this class and equipment used to build longer

                      5 years + completion at the shipyard
                      Did Stegen or LA build longer?
                      Quote: Professor
                      You need to compare objects of about the same class and then talk

                      Expenditures on the USSR Navy in 1989 amounted to 12,08 billion rubles, of which 2993 million rubles for the purchase of ships and boats and 6531 million for technical equipment.

                      - directory “Soviet Navy. 1990 — 1991 ”, Pavlov A.S.

                      It is planned to allocate 30,2 billion dollars for the purchase of weapons and military equipment for the US Navy, of which 8,8 billion will be used for the purchase of aviation equipment, 9,6 billion for warships and auxiliary vessels, 5,7 billion for missile weapons, artillery and small arms armaments and torpedoes, 4,9 billion - of other military equipment.

                      - Foreign Military Review, #9 1989 year
  6. Nayhas
    Nayhas 20 January 2014 10: 47
    +6
    At the beginning of the development of the nuclear submarine, both the USSR and the USA were in constant search for the best, which was accompanied by the formation of the very "zoo" that Oleg mentioned. But by the beginning of the 70s, the Americans had already decided on the main parameters and really did away with it by launching a series of Los Angeles submarines and Ohio SSBNs in the mid 70s. To say that the Elk series includes various projects is rather rude. Of course there were changes during the construction of the series, but basically it's the same Elk, the power plant is the same, the ship systems are the same. The arrangement of machines and mechanisms is practically unchanged. Those. during the construction of a series, special restructuring of the technological process is not required, the contours, the ship's set remain unchanged throughout the entire production period. Any changes are adjusted to the existing technological process. Here you can draw a parallel, for example, with the production of the T-55 tank. Over the years, the tank has undergone many changes, but despite this, its production was not expensive, because the main products were manufactured for many years without changes. The transition to the T-62 required a restructuring of production with the corresponding attendant troubles, such as rejects, disruption of supplies, etc. While everyone got used to the new tank, and then the T-72 arrived in time and again leapfrog and heart attacks at the leadership ...
    Regarding the domestic nuclear submarine fleet, it is worth noting that in addition to SSBNs and multipurpose submarines, we were developing SSGNs, which added "variety" to the domestic submarine, and if at the beginning the SSGNs were made on the basis of one project with the 670/671 multipurpose SSBNs, then later on SSGNs became a separate project (thanks to the Chelomey Design Bureau, for which "size matters").
    1. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 20 January 2014 14: 46
      0
      then later SSGNs became a separate project (thanks to the Chelomey Design Bureau, for which "size matters").
      Apparently, no one set the task of squeezing Granite into the TA for Chalomey.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 20 January 2014 19: 40
        0
        Quote: Old_Kapitan
        Apparently, no one set the task of squeezing Granite into the TA for Chalomey.

        It is not known to me, but with us only KB Innovator was able to keep within 533mm. TA. As far as I understood Chelomei, such aspects as dimensions were not at all interesting, in general, this odious person requires a separate consideration and trial of history.
    2. Santa Fe
      20 January 2014 16: 15
      +2
      Quote: Nayhas
      But by the beginning of the 70’s, the Americans had already decided on the main parameters and really put an end to it by launching the Los Angeles PLA and Ohio SSBN series in the middle of the 70’s.

      This did not reduce the number of types of submarines in service with the U.S. Navy.

      Los Angeles - at least two types (improved LA - a response to the emergence of 971 Pike-B).
      then the leapfrog generally began - SeaWulf, Carter, 5 Virginia sub-series ...
      Quote: Nayhas
      There have certainly been changes during the construction of the series, but basically it’s the same Elk, the GEM is the same, the ship systems are the same.

      Well, by the same logic, you can prove that 971, 949 and Borey are one and the same. The same OKP-650 YAPPU with the OK-9 turbo gear unit. The same HAK - MGK-540.
      Quote: Nayhas
      The arrangement of machines and mechanisms is practically unchanged. Those. during the construction of a series of special technological process restructuring is not required, contours, ship set without changes throughout the entire production period.

      And then! Borea - sections from dismantled submarines, etc. 971 are directly used!
      Here you are, Nayhas, the triumph of unification)))

      By the way, the aft of 949 is similar to 661
      Quote: Nayhas
      Regarding the domestic nuclear submarine fleet, it is worth noting that in addition to SSBNs and multipurpose submarines, we developed SSBNs

      But what about Ohio, Virginia and LA with VLS

      In fact, most of "our" SSGNs did not differ much from "their" multipurpose
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 20 January 2014 18: 28
        -1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This did not reduce the number of types of submarines in service with the U.S. Navy.

        This is taking into account previously built.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        then the leapfrog generally began - SeaWulf, Carter, 5 Virginia sub-series ...

        This is due, as you yourself noted, in connection with the onset of the "dashing 90s", which went through the American Navy with a steam roller more terrible than ours ... really now the Elks will be replaced by Virgins, and Seawolf has remained a relic of the Cold War, as well as Raptor ...
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

        Well, by the same logic, you can prove that 971, 949 and Borey are one and the same. The same OKP-650 YAPPU with the OK-9 turbo gear unit. The same HAK - MGK-540.

        Absolutely different contours and, accordingly, ship set.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And then! Borea - sections from dismantled submarines, etc. 971 are directly used!
        Here you are, Nayhas, the triumph of unification)))

        Oleg, cannibalism and unification are all different things.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        But what about Ohio, Virginia and LA with VLS
        In fact, most of "our" SSGNs did not differ much from "their" multipurpose

        This applies to pr.671RTM and pr.945A and pr.971, as well as in some way pr.670 and 670M. Etc. 949 stands out from this series because of the individuality of the project.
        1. Santa Fe
          20 January 2014 20: 41
          -1
          Quote: Nayhas
          This is taking into account previously built.

          The boats are BUILT and now they need to be serviced
          Quote: Nayhas
          really now Moose will be replaced by Virgins

          1 block, 3 block and 5 block - completely different ships
          + SiWolves, Carter and modernized aircraft hang on the balance
          Quote: Nayhas
          Absolutely different contours and, accordingly, ship set.

          What does it matter during operation
          Full unification of spare parts - GEMs of the same type, HAC, too. All the filling is the same - up to SDAU OKS Molybdenum-I
          Quote: Nayhas
          Oleg, cannibalism and unification are all different things.

          But in fact, we have two identical submarines - unified for most nodes with other types of submarines
          Quote: Nayhas
          Etc. 949 stands out from this series due to the individuality of the project.

          Well, why, there the layout repeats 661.
        2. mpa945
          mpa945 22 January 2014 09: 29
          0
          This applies to pr.671RTM and pr.945A and pr.971, as well as in some way pr.670 and 670M. Etc. 949 stands out from this series because of the individuality of the project.
          I repeat once again, out of 670 nothing has grown. as well as from 671. ideologically, 945 and 971 are direct descendants of 705.
    3. mpa945
      mpa945 20 January 2014 21: 54
      0
      670 and 671 completely different projects, almost nothing in common
  7. 1969s9691g.
    1969s9691g. 20 January 2014 10: 59
    0
    The author didn’t give anything new, he “grinded” from the reference book, that's all.
    1. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 20 January 2014 12: 50
      +10
      The author didn’t give anything new, he “grinded” from the reference book, that's all.
      Are you sure that the author set himself the goal of "giving out" something new? It seems to me that he just wanted to compare, which he did in good faith, "rummaging through the reference books." So that we can draw conclusions without bothering ourselves with "digging".
      Thank you Oleg, it worked well.
  8. Leshka
    Leshka 20 January 2014 12: 10
    0
    simply put a lot
  9. AVV
    AVV 20 January 2014 12: 23
    +1
    We need to develop our own submarine fleet !!! Borey and Ash, here are two projects that will replace all the previous ones! Yes, plus a cheaper and more technologically advanced project of a simplified Ash is being worked out but more simple to manufacture, let's see what happens!
    1. Panikovsky
      Panikovsky 20 January 2014 13: 44
      0
      Quote: AVV
      We need to develop our own submarine fleet !!! Borey and Ash, here are two projects that will replace all the previous ones! Yes, plus a cheaper and more technologically advanced project of a simplified Ash is being worked out but more simple to manufacture, let's see what happens!

      and do not forget, Karp and Kostroma will be modernized and returned to service.
    2. yehat
      yehat 21 January 2014 14: 29
      0
      yeah, in a fairy tale about Tsar Saltan, Pushkin just described a simplified version of Yasen)))
    3. The comment was deleted.
  10. ed65b
    ed65b 20 January 2014 18: 07
    +1
    Thank you very much. read with pleasure. let's have something like that. hi
  11. Crang
    Crang 20 January 2014 19: 24
    +2
    Yes, I also believe that the best and most powerful representatives of the submarine are the unsurpassed pr.941. Don't cut them. We must start producing them again. No need for Bulava - there is no doubt about the capabilities of the D-19 (R-39) complex. Fry it right. He has 20 ICBMs with 10 MIRVs each. There is the latest Soviet guidance system. Finds all American presidents, prime ministers, secretaries of state, generals, etc. only 200 people and shoves each of them in the ass with a 100Kt warhead.
  12. coserg 2012
    coserg 2012 20 January 2014 20: 25
    0
    Thanks to the author interestingly and concisely, without broth.
  13. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 20 January 2014 21: 36
    +2
    What can I say ... We had our troubles, according to which the fleet was built. The Americans had their own. Different approaches to construction, different types of economies, different financing (Marx has not been canceled yet). Therefore, there were many types (development due to new ideas). Something was better with us, something was better was with them.
    But ... Not the ships are fighting, but the people.
  14. postman
    postman 21 January 2014 02: 21
    0
    Quote: Author
    32 domestic projects of combat submarines against 23 American. The difference is not big enough to sound the alarm

    Of course, only 28with copecks %, ALMOST 30%, what nonsense.
    But the thing not this
    1.Total world type 55 (for 1994)
    2.USA built 182 (for 1994), i.e. 182/23 (more precisely 20 if blocks are not counted) = 7,91 apl / project (9,1)
    3.USSR (RF) 245 (1994), i.e. 245/32 (somewhere over 40 will be all the variety, taking into account the "redone"?) = 7,65 apl / project (6,12)

    9,1 and 6,12
    4. "circulation" of nuclear submarines under construction
    from 80's in the USA ONLY 2's: missile and multipurpose, and ours?
    Almost for every type of ship and not for every type of weapon ..
    in the 70 we have revered in the 3 (!) times more nuclear submarines were launched than the USA, and in the 80 in the USA it is ALREADY MORE than in the USSR
    1. postman
      postman 21 January 2014 02: 22
      0
      Quote: Postman
      4. "circulation" of nuclear submarines under construction
      1. Santa Fe
        21 January 2014 02: 37
        0
        Quote: Postman
        4. "circulation" of nuclear submarines under construction

        But this is a lie.
        Where does the 9 submarine project come from on 1990?
        1. postman
          postman 21 January 2014 12: 36
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          But this is a lie.

          I would not be so categorical, I took "" from where the clippings came from. This is a paper "" version of those times, not the Internet "" ...
          not the 90th, but the 90s
          mb included:
          Project 10831 (AC-31 No.01210 16.07.1990)
          Project 1910
          Project 18511
          etc.
          Ex.09711 and variations
          and?
          1. Santa Fe
            21 January 2014 19: 46
            -1
            Quote: Postman
            Project 10831 (AC-31 No.01210 16.07.1990)
            Project 1910
            Project 18511
            etc.
            Ex.09711 and variations
            and?

            Well, we are talking about nuclear-powered combat ships. And not Losharikah, bathyscaphes and their carriers, stands from old nuclear submarines

            By the way, why didn't anyone count Kamehameha and James Polk - converted Franklin for special operations?
    2. Santa Fe
      21 January 2014 02: 40
      -1
      Quote: Postman
      from 80's in the USA ONLY 2's: missile and multipurpose, and ours?
      Almost for every type of ship and not for every type of weapon ..

      Nothing like this
      Quote: Postman
      in the 70 we have revered in the 3 (!) times more nuclear submarines were launched than the USA, and in the 80 in the USA it is ALREADY MORE than in the USSR

      You take it into account the main thing - most of "ours" were simpler and cheaper than "them"
      1. postman
        postman 21 January 2014 12: 49
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Nothing like this

        1980-e
        USSR: in 1967-1974 they built 34 nuclear submarines of project 667A "Navaga", 18 submarines of project 667B "Murena", 4 submarines of project 667BD "Murena-M", 14 submarines of project 667BDR "Kalmar", 7 submarines of project 667 BDRM "Dolphin" ", 11 submarines of project 670" Skat ", 1 submarine of project 661" Anchar ", 6 submarines of project 670M" Chaika "(" Skat-M "); converted from SSBNs of project 667A 3 submarines of project 667AT "Grusha" and 1 submarine of project 667M "Andromeda". Multipurpose submarines: 15 submarines of project 671 "Yorsh", 7 submarines of project 671RT "Salmon", 26 submarines of project 671RTM (K) "Shchuka", 7 submarines with a liquid metal reactor of projects 705 (4 units) and 705K "Lira" (3 units) ... Submarine shells of projects 661, 705, 705K were made of titanium.
        http://russian-ships.info/podlodki/menu_podlodki_apl.htm
        and bring them numbers
        Ohio Submarines
        +
        Los Angeles Submarines
        = for replacement (!) Submarines of the Sivulf type
        and?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        the main thing - most of "ours" were simpler and cheaper than "them"

        about simpler "" probably about cheaper "" - BIG DOUBT
        1. Economy collapsed with us, not with them
        2.We (and not they) sold raw materials and energy raw materials, and imported FOOD, they are vice versa
        3.Every new project is huge finances (R&D, equipment, infrastructure, logistics, training, piers, moorings, etc., in the final account and DISPOSAL
        4. build a nuclear submarine in Severodvinsk (12 months winter and cold) or Leningrad (9 months winter and cold) or Connecticut or Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company in Newport News, Virginia(where almost eternal summer) - THESE ARE TWO BIG DIFFERENCES.
        (The same applies to mining and transportation of ore, smelting of iron / steel and rolling) + distances
        about "cheaper" - LEGENDS, the legend of our rock, does not roll, any economist will prove to you
        5. labor productivity and the available technological basis
        1. Professor
          Professor 21 January 2014 12: 57
          0
          Quote: Postman
          about simpler "" probably about cheaper "" - BIG DOUBT

          I join your doubts. I have been interested in laboriousness for a long time, and it is not always in our favor.
          1. postman
            postman 21 January 2014 13: 19
            0
            Quote: Professor
            and she is not always in our favor.

            Yes, of course, there is no need to go to "grandma" ... I just know how much I pay for heating in St. Petersburg and the region.
            And this is just the house!
            1. Shop
            2. Warehouses
            3. Housing, kindergarten, school for workers and employees and their children and parents
            4.transport (warming up)
            5.ZhD and infrastructure
            6.port + icebreakers.
            This is so offhand.
            HEAT PUMPS, as far as I was not used (at that time) and UNUSED to this day, we are not in Stockholm ..

            They will object! Air conditioners (it is necessary to cool, for example in Israel, in the USA) and humidity (although we always have 99% outside). And what about air conditioners?
            the reverse Rankine cycle, which is much more energy-efficient (like a heat pump, even better)
            1. Professor
              Professor 21 January 2014 13: 48
              +3
              Quote: Postman
              They will object! Air conditioners

              And who interestingly cools the hangar at the shipyard in Haifa in Israel? The average temperature in the summer is plus 29. In Nikolaev in the summer it is hotter and there are no air conditioners in the workshops either. They stood for repair in Nikolaev, they cleaned the fuel tank with a sandblast. I stood for a couple of minutes (I got to control the work), and the kid there for 8 hours in hot metal in only one mask with a hose.

              I have always argued that if in the USSR hard workers and engineers were paid as American, then all the equipment in the Union would be gold.
              1. postman
                postman 21 January 2014 14: 40
                0
                Quote: Professor
                And who interestingly cools the hangar at the shipyard in Haifa in Israel?

                About air conditioners ... this is me by the way
                Hedgehog "" it is clear (even in spite of the Rankine cycle) that COOLING the shop from a temperature of +30 to +23 is energetically (and financially) more profitable than to warm it up from -20 to +15 at least.

                Quote: Professor
                I always argued that if in the USSR hard workers and engineers were paid as American

                It's not just about getting paid ""
                1.Don't print money as much as needed, that is, normal TDO
                2. In principle, as he wrote, the Russian Federation receives as much (if not more) for oil as the USSR, taxes are collected (personal income tax, NP, VAT, excise taxes, TP, MET, etc.) - ie less like everywhere.
                And the way out? how many MBT, aircraft, nuclear submarines are being built?
                And what is the price of rubles -> in $?
                That and that.
                Only Oleg Kaptsov is cheaper "". This is fantastic.
                I remember (from adolescence) a devastating article in Pravda (or Komsomolskaya Pravda): "" the Pentagon pays the American military-industrial complex for ashtrays for the B-52 (or B-1) at a price of as much as $ 330 / piece. THIS IS A WORLD OF LIES AND DECEPTION.
                Well, and so on.

                ============
                I would like to see how much the ashtray costs for the Tu-160 or another strategist .... we
                1. Professor
                  Professor 21 January 2014 14: 55
                  0
                  Quote: Postman
                  .Do not print money as much as necessary, that is, normal TDO

                  Germany, for example, will not print like the United States, but even there the salary is human, the equipment is of high quality and not gold.
                  1. postman
                    postman 21 January 2014 15: 28
                    0
                    Quote: Professor
                    Germany, for example, does not print as the United States

                    I meant "print" in the USSR.
                    USA ... printing press ... this is a separate issue.
                    Printing press (USA) not for inside "", but for outside "".
                    to them (USA), as much as I myself do not see, and the people working there are not very warm / cold from the printed papers.

                    Well, Germany is understandable. Commodity-money relations.

                    By the way, how in Israel with this?
                    Does credit debit converge?
                    in principle, in a country WITHOUT the Constitution, the same can be manipulated by the budget, theoretically, of course.
                    It seems that the Israeli economy is not self-sufficient? Subsidized (from the outside)?
                    PIT in Israel
                    Persons permanently resident in the country pay taxes on any income, regardless of the country in which its source is located. And those who do not reside permanently in the country pay income tax and capital gains tax only from sources of profit located in Israel itself.

                    The preferential preferences (after 60) of course touched me
                    1. atalef
                      atalef 21 January 2014 15: 39
                      0
                      Quote: Postman
                      The printing press (USA) is not for the inside "", but for the outside "". To them (in the USA), as far as I can not see myself, and the people working there are not very warm / cold from the printed papers

                      Sorry to fit in. In general, domestic bucks are no different from those traveling outside the United States - therefore, it is impossible to consider this as two unrelated systems.

                      Quote: Postman
                      By the way, how in Israel with this? Debit with the loan converges?

                      Yes, everything is in order. Shekel is one of the most stable currencies in the world. It is fully convertible
                      Quote: Postman
                      in principle, in a country WITHOUT the Constitution, the same can be manipulated by the budget, theoretically, of course

                      Well, we are not alone. as an example, in England there is no constitution
                      Quote: Postman
                      It seems that the Israeli economy is not self-sufficient? Subsidized (from the outside)?

                      Self-sufficient and non-subsidized. State military assistance is only 3 billion non-cash payments for the purchase of only Amer’s equipment. And this is only 5% of the budget of Israel. In general, in my understanding, without this help, we would have lived easier because receiving it imposes obligations on Israel to coordinate sales of our military equipment with the States. Not so long ago, they cut us off a deal to sell AWACS aircraft to China. We only had to pay forfeit under 800 million bucks.
                      Quote: Postman
                      Persons permanently residing in the country pay taxes on any income, regardless of the country in which its source is located

                      Nothing like this. My wife rents apartments in Kiev, the money is transferred to Israel - no one pays any taxes
                      Quote: Postman
                      And those who do not reside permanently in the country pay income tax and capital gains tax only from sources of profit

                      Of course (if we are talking about Israeli citizens) If I do not live in the country, but say my money is invested in stocks, then income tax is taken from them on income. 25% (but only from the amount of net profit)
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 21 January 2014 15: 51
                        +1
                        Quote: Postman
                        Does credit debit converge?

                        It converges, but not always. This year they received $ 4 billion more than planned. The scandal has not subsided so far.

                        Quote: Postman
                        in principle, in a country WITHOUT the Constitution, the same can be manipulated by the budget, theoretically, of course.

                        This constitution is just a piece of paper. Stalin had the Constitution, and he did what he wanted. Another sits for a third term, although the Constitution dealt with two, but it was changed by prolonging hard labor in galleys from 4 to 6 years. As correctly noted in the constitutional monarchy of England, there is no constitution.

                        Quote: Postman
                        It seems that the Israeli economy is not self-sufficient? Subsidized (from the outside)?

                        Not self-sufficient - there are no more such people in the world (block export of hydrocarbons and there will be no Russian economy), but also not subsidized.


                        Quote: atalef
                        Nothing like this. My wife rents apartments in Kiev, the money is transferred to Israel - no one pays any taxes

                        They don’t know about it in the tax office, they don’t seem to find out much. In Israel, it’s better to quarrel with the mafia than with the tax.

                        Taxes in Israel are VERY large.
                      2. postman
                        postman 21 January 2014 16: 09
                        0
                        [quote = professor] there are no more of these in the world [/ quote]
                        I do not agree.
                        Otherwise, there would be no concept: authorization ""
                        Austria-Hungary (1867-1918)
                        Spain Franco until 1959
                        Albania from 1976 to 1991.
                        Romania in 1980-1989
                        Afghanistan in 1996-2001 (Taliban regime).
                        Iran (now): self-sufficient economy
                        the quality of products in Iran is amazing: milk smells like village milk, fruits are fragrant, juices are natural.
                        Turkmenistan - now
                        [quote = professor] block the export of hydrocarbons [/ quote]
                        Authorship - closed economy, economics, implying absolute sovereignty.
                        Not related to export of UVS. Related to external borrowing and stock quotes (pieces of paper) in the foreign market
                        quote = professor] In Israel it is better to quarrel with the mafia than with the tax. [/ quote]
                        In Sweden, Denmark, similarly, DIRECTLY ON THE SITE the tax is written.
                        Well, in Germany everyone already knows, since the time of Frederick the Great and his cane
                      3. Professor
                        Professor 21 January 2014 22: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Postman
                        Albania from 1976 to 1991.
                        Romania in 1980-1989
                        Afghanistan in 1996-2001 (Taliban regime).

                        Nifiga. Even Albania in those years actively traded with China, Afghanistan lives off the export of drugs. There are no self-sufficient economies. They threatened Iran with sanctions as their economy tipped and he made wild concessions. Apart from the tribes in the Amazon, no one can live on his own.
                      4. postman
                        postman 22 January 2014 17: 57
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        Nifiga.

                        Ettt is not me, this is the world opinion.
                      5. Professor
                        Professor 22 January 2014 21: 54
                        0
                        Quote: Postman
                        Ettt is not me, this is the world opinion.

                        Well, if world opinion, then I pass. wassat
              2. postman
                postman 21 January 2014 15: 57
                0
                Quote: atalef
                In general, domestic bucks are no different from those traveling outside the United States -

                Not right. The problem of US foreign debt is solved in 1 day.
                And hardly anyone has the strength to challenge.
                Only domestic money, only on residents' internal accounts (from external accounts can also be allowed to be returned, AFTER the Ministry of Finance checks), the import of cash dollars is prohibited. All. Start from scratch and from zero balance (Germany variation after 2MB-40 Bundesmark on hands).
                Domestic Debt (USA) LESS COMPLETE ASSETS ONLY HOUSING HOUSES.
                This is the main thing.
                Quote: atalef
                money is transferred to Israel - no one pays any taxes

                And where does she reside? where more than 6 months?
                Quote: Postman
                And those who does not reside in the country permanentlyoh, pay income tax and capital gains tax only from sources of profit located in Israel itself.


                Quote: Postman
                in England there is no constitution

                That England ... tradition. I am talking about evidence in court (testimony of a citizen who pays taxes and has a good reputation)
                It is appropriate to recall a joke:

                He says: “point”, and I: “show him”, and he: “Our gentleman believes the gentleman’s word”. And then I was flooded, how flooded. ...
            2. The comment was deleted.
  • Santa Fe
    21 January 2014 19: 54
    0
    Quote: Postman
    1980-e
    USSR: in 1967-1974 they built 34 nuclear submarines of project 667A "Navaga", 18 submarines of project 667B "Murena", 4 submarines of project 667BD "Murena-M", 14 submarines of project 667BDR "Kalmar"

    So how many of them were built in 80?
    Quote: Postman
    Ohio Submarines
    +
    Los Angeles Submarines

    LA
    LA VLS
    Impruvd LA - than not a separate project

    old men from "41 for Freedom" were capitalized so that the differences between 667BDR and BDRM pale against this background - Polaris were changed to Poseidons and even (sic!) Trident-1 (count the difference in the mass of SLBMs and the associated difficulties)
    Quote: Postman
    about simpler "" probably about cheaper "" - BIG DOUBT

    Relative primitiveness of constructions
    Cheap labor
    Covered in boathouses
    About "new projects" - in the first part of the comment
    1. postman
      postman 22 January 2014 17: 57
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      So how many of them were built in 80?

      I did not immediately find. but there is more built ...
      if we consider (concept, definition) the 80s, it’s since 1980 (1),
      although there is a point of view that the 80s is from 1971 to 1980

      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      old men from "41 for Freedom" capitalized so

      Well, what does "capital" mean? and what is the project?
      Vaz 2109 with a "short" wing and a "long" wing is it like different cars?
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Polaris exchanged for Poseidons and even (sic!) Trident-1

      Poseidon: Starting weight: 29,5 t, Length: 10,39 m,Diameter: 1,88 m
      Polaris: Starting weight, t 12,7 (13,6) Length, m 8,53 (9,45)Diameter, m 1,37
      Trident I S-4: Starting weight, t 40,3 Length m 14,8 Diameter, m 1,9
      see american submarine launchers
      SLBM “Lockheed” UGM-73A “Poseidon” C3
      By 1964, two promising ballistic missile submarine projects were submitted for consideration. One was subsequently implemented as a Lockheed UGM-73A Poseidon NW submarine ballistic missile, which could use the launch pads of existing US Navy missile nuclear submarines. Ultimately, 31 of the originally built 41 nuclear missile submarines were modernized to use Poseidon missiles. Some were later re-upgraded to accept Trident 1 missiles.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Relative primitiveness of constructions

      yeah
      1. titanium alloy
      2.World depth and speed records
      so "primitive" ....
      All miserable salaries, nothing (at cost) to maintain temperature

      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Cheap labor

      The cost of infrastructure (creation and maintenance) is not included in the cost of the product
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Covered in boathouses

      Them that it is not necessary to warm?
      1. Santa Fe
        25 January 2014 03: 15
        0
        Quote: Postman
        see american submarine launchers

        Those. Trident longer than polaris almost 1,5 times
        Did not try to call your garage on a gazelle with a high roof?
        Quote: Postman
        yeah
        1. titanium alloy
        2.World depth and speed records

        Unit designs

        Like the SiWolf super-boat

        Better compare those. perfection of serial: K-19 and some "James Madison"
        Or 671RTM and Los Angeles
        Quote: Postman
        The cost of infrastructure (creation and maintenance) is not included in the cost of the product

        You might think the shipyard in Newport is cheaper
        1. postman
          postman 27 January 2014 13: 10
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Those. Trident longer than polaris almost 1,5 times

          look at the root that is, in diameter
          and for a nuclear submarine, see HEIGHT, well, and width, of course (although here it’s just that Parche, that the moose is about 10m)
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Did not try to call your garage on a gazelle with a high roof?

          1. there is no garage
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          You might think the shipyard in Newport is cheaper

          Yes.
          1. that the construction thereof
          2. that keeping healthy
          3. that the maintenance of infrastructure (kindergartens, clinics, housing, transport, etc.)
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 21 January 2014 21: 50
    0
    A good overview of a nuclear submarine of a potential adversary (which is really hypocritical, like under Yeltsin:) I read with interest the data on American submarine forces summarized in one place.