Military Review

Russian submarines project 885 "Ash" will compete with the American submarine fleet

45
Currently, the Russian submarine fleet is experiencing a real renaissance. For the first time in modern stories Russia is building four nuclear-powered submarines of the most modern class at the berths of the Severodvinsk machine-building enterprise. 19 March 2015, on the Day of the Submariner's Sailor, took place the tab of the 5 submarine. This is one of the most modern and the most secret Russian submarines of the 4 generation of the 885 Yasen-M project - the Arkhangelsk submarine.


The Arkhangelsk submarine became the fourth submarine in the series of multi-purpose nuclear submarines of the Yasen-M project, which were designed by the Malakhit Marine Engineering Bureau from St. Petersburg. In this project, many technical solutions were used that had never before been used in Russian underwater shipbuilding. The head submarine of this series (project 885 "Ash") "Severodvinsk" was launched in 2010 and June 17, 2014 included in the Northern fleet. At present, along with Arkhangelsk, multi-purpose nuclear submarines of the improved Yasen-M project are being built at Sevmash: Kazan, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk. The project changes relate primarily to modernized equipment and materials, the elemental base of electronic weapons systems, which will be supplied exclusively by domestic manufacturers.

According to the naval doctrine adopted in Russia, in the future, it is the nuclear submarines of this project that should form the basis of our multi-purpose nuclear submarines (it is planned to build 8 of such submarines). It is worth noting that the ships of the project 885 are the last word in the Russian submarine shipbuilding. At the moment they are one of the most powerful weapons and silent boats in the world. Often, they are compared by combat capabilities with US Navy submarines of the Seawolf type, the construction of which was decided to be abandoned for financial reasons (only 3 boats of this type were built) and Virginia (they are being built in large series, 11 boats are already in service).



According to experts of the British newspaper The Sunday Times, the technical capabilities of the new Russian submarine are such that it can hardly be found in the ocean, which makes the Severodvinsk almost invulnerable in the face of modern anti-submarine weapons systems. “Russia is rushing ahead in underwater technology. First of all, the United States is concerned about the emergence of new Russian submarines, ”the newspaper quoted its source from intelligence services as saying. “We don’t even know half of what is on board of these boats, it’s good that so far there are not many such submarines,” the expert notes.

So far, the Russian fleet has only one submarine of the Yasen project - Severodvinsk. But before 2020, the number of such boats should be brought to 8, while 7 ships are built according to the updated project "Yasen-M". From the classic "Ash" they will differ more advanced electronic weapons, said in an interview with RIA "News»Director General of Malachite design bureau Nikolay Novoselov. At the same time, the designers try not to disclose any details about the project, the boat continues to be the most secret in the Russian fleet. Experts note that the submarines of the 885 project must become the direct heirs of the extremely successful series of submarines of the 3 generation of the 971 “Pike-B” project (according to the NATO codification of the Shark). These ships today form the basis of our multi-purpose attack submarines. Almost silent in the depths of the ocean, these boats can equally effectively act against warships and transports of the enemy, as well as strike cruise missiles at its coastal infrastructure.

Not so long ago, the Shchuka-B boats were noted in the 200-mile zone near the shores of the United States and Canada, which they managed to cause quite a stir in the overseas military. Both the US and Canadian military experienced difficulties with tracking the movements of Russian submarines. Their concerns can be understood, given that the 971 submarines are armed with the Granat C-10 cruise missiles, equipped with an 100 CT nuclear warhead and with a range of up to 2500 km.

Russian submarines project 885 "Ash" will compete with the American submarine fleet


According to the journalists of the TV channel Zvezda, on the newest Russian strategic submarines of the 955 Borey project: Alexander Nevsky and Yuri Dolgoruky, also belonging to the fourth generation, the share of high-precision filling for the first time does not exceed 40%. At the same time, in the multi-purpose nuclear submarine of the 885-M Kazan project, all systems and mechanisms will be completely new, not previously used anywhere. This is a completely new equipment that has no analogues in either the Soviet or the Russian military shipbuilding. Hence the high price of these boats. For example, the first ship of the 955 project "Borey", taking into account its development, cost the Ministry of Defense 23 a billion rubles, while the cost of the head boat of the Yasen project, Severodvinsk, was determined to be 47 billion rubles. The cost of a series of 5 boats project 885М is about 164 billion rubles (about 33 billion rubles apiece).

If we draw parallels with US ships, the cost of Russian submarines of the Yasen project can be called acceptable. For example, a series of three "Sea wolves" cost the US military 13,2 billion dollars (4,4 billion dollars apiece). And, for example, the latest atomic American aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type, together with the entire air group, cost the US budget a little over 5 billions of dollars. At the same time, the cost of one submarine of the previous project of the Los Angeles type is estimated at just 741 million dollars.

At the moment, the SSRK "Ash" is the quintessence of all that the Russian defense industry has been able to accumulate over more than half a century of its development. In the draft of the boat, a compromised mixed design system was used, when the light hull of the boat "covers" only a part of the strong hull in the bow to reduce noise. For the first time in the practice of Russian shipbuilding, torpedo tubes were located not in the bow of the ship, but behind the central post section. This solution allowed the antenna of the modern hydroacoustic complex to be positioned in the bow of the boat.



The boat can use a wide range of missile weapons, which is launched from vertical launchers. The submarine hull was made of special high-strength low-magnetic steel, which allows it to dive to a depth of 600 meters, which makes the ship almost inaccessible to all types of existing anti-submarine weapons. The maximum underwater stroke speed of the submarine is 31 node (approximately 60 km / h), surface speed - 16 nodes. The boat has one nuclear reactor, whose service life is about 25-30 years, which is comparable with the life of the boat itself.

The main armament of the submarine is located in the central part of the complex - in the missile compartment. There are 8 vertical rocket mines, each of which can be up to 4 TPK with rockets. It is possible to combine various missile systems, which allows you to flexibly change the set of combat tasks to be solved - from hitting stationary ground targets with ZM-14 “Caliber” missiles, to fighting all types of surface ships and enemy submarines with Onyx and ZM-800 missiles "Caliber". It is also planned to equip submarines with modern strategic X-54 cruise missiles (X-101 with a nuclear warhead), which have a declared range of up to 102 thousands of kilometers. In addition, in the middle part of the boat there are ten 5,5-mm torpedo tubes, through which the entire nomenclature of modern Russian torpedoes can be used.

On the basis of their characteristics, the Yasen project boats are capable of solving a wide range of combat missions: hunting for the enemy’s strategic nuclear submarines, fighting with its aircraft carrier groups, or massive strikes against ground targets and infrastructure. Experts point out that Russian boats are more versatile than American Seawolf.



The state armaments program adopted in Russia, calculated up to 2020, puts the development of the fleet and especially its underwater component in line with the development of strategic nuclear forces and calls it one of the main priorities of the state. Of the trillions of rubles allocated to the 22 program, almost 5 trillions of rubles will be spent on the fleet. The amounts, at first glance, are astronomical, but necessary. According to experts, even 8 Russian submarines on alert are able to provide us parity with the United States. And with the increase in the submarine fleet of new generations of the 955 and 885 project, Russia will be able to make a more significant step forward in this direction. Submariners believe that despite the fact that Washington and Moscow are not ready to go into open confrontation, a real war continues in the depths of the sea. The technology war, in which the Russian fleet is not only a worthy opponent, but also a very serious competitor even for the leading maritime powers of the world.

Information sources:
http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201503181645-3jkk.htm
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-339.html
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/885_severodvinsk
http://www.sevmash.ru/rus/news/1832--lr-.html
Author:
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. subbtin.725
    subbtin.725 24 March 2015 06: 07
    34
    Commenting on the film "Crimea, the Way to the Homeland" VVP itself asks the question that sometimes he himself did not believe that it was us, that it was OUR army that was able to carry out such a complex operation so masterly. But it really is WE. So, reading such publications about our submarine fleet, the feeling of pride is overwhelming. I am proud that I belong to this great nation.
  2. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 24 March 2015 07: 23
    11
    At the moment "Severodvinsk" is in a single copy. It would still be possible to put in operation the laid down ones - already well. If, of course, the military-political situation allows it. And shouting hurray and expressing delight is simply inappropriate. The Sea Wolves and Virginias will overcome the elementary amount. What kind of competition is there? The question is about nothing. Work tirelessly, nothing else is needed
    1. subbtin.725
      subbtin.725 24 March 2015 07: 52
      +4
      Quote: Evgeniy667b
      And shouting cheers and expressing enthusiasm is simply inappropriate.

      Quote: Evgeniy667b
      . What is the competition here? The question is about nothing.

      But what is this then? Again, everything is bad, everything is lost. Can't you see positive changes in our Armed Forces? After all, there are positive aspects to the face. These are not our local "hurray-splashes", leading foreign military analysts admit it . And in order not to notice this, you need to be frankly blind. Sorry, this does not apply to you.
      1. Anton Gavrilov
        Anton Gavrilov 24 March 2015 07: 57
        18
        We, of course, well done, in spite of all the difficulties, we did build it, yet more or less brought to mind the largest and most complex MPLATRK of the 4 generation, besides with a number of very strong points.

        But this is not enough in the enemy fleets of 4 generation boats, there are already a lot of 3 Sea Wolf amers (but 3 is used as a special-purpose submarine), 11 Virginia + 1 has been launched and will go into operation this August. Plus while we are talking with you, more than a dozen of these steamships are being built. It is also necessary to take into account the fact that the Britons already have 2 Astyut, the 3 is already on the water, and they are going to put it into operation already this year. French Barracuda.

        So, we still have to work, work and work again.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 24 March 2015 09: 46
          11
          Quote: Anton Gavrilov
          Plus, while we are talking with you, more than a dozen of these steamers are being built. It is also necessary to take into account the fact that the Britons already have 2 Astyut, the 3 is already on the water, and they are going to put it into operation this year. the head of the French Barracuda.
          And is it necessary to rush to cut the Sharks, if there is an opportunity to return them to service, re-equipping KR type X-102 or intercontinental Sineva (Liner) for cassette inserts, is it really more expensive to adapt new missiles to old spacious mines on finished boats and longer than building a new boat? In any case, nothing is known on what grounds and by whom the decision to destroy two of the three remaining most powerful and modern boats of the Soviet Union was projected, whether there was a commission, who is generally responsible for such a decision. Breaking is not building, and we have very little time, apart from the problems with personnel, and the same sanctions. It would be good if the president was interested not only in the fate of the Far Eastern tigers and leopards, but also in the fate of our Arctic boats. The picture shows the comparative sizes of the missiles, among which the R-39, which requires replacement (although I wonder where the entire ammunition load from six boats, that is, 120 missiles with 1200 warheads, was sent, it seems, there was information that "something" remained not destroyed).
          1. Anton Gavrilov
            Anton Gavrilov 24 March 2015 10: 20
            0
            So, how can you all not understand?

            The work will not be limited to mines alone! A serious modernization of the entire RTV will be required there, a serious body repair, a serious repair and modernization of mechanisms and equipment will be required. And this is all money and resources.

            There is no point in reviving the Sharks, no.
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 24 March 2015 12: 19
              11
              Quote: Anton Gavrilov
              There is no point in reviving the Sharks, no.
              Such issues should be resolved by a government commission of military analysts, designers, scientists, in short, this is not a buy-and-sell business with immediate benefits from "effective managers." I will repeat what I said earlier in the comments, the Americans are provided with ships above the roof, nevertheless, their four Ohio-class boats did not cut something, did not repeat "no sense", "Ohio no". They took and remade the mines under the Kyrgyz Republic. We apparently have a lot of boats, or are the Yankees such idiots?
              1. Anton Gavrilov
                Anton Gavrilov 24 March 2015 14: 08
                +2
                For reference, their first 4 Ohio was in absolutely good condition and in good condition. I don’t think I should speak about the state of Severstal and the former Arkhangelsk. The ship is in good condition, but again, all 3 ships will need a deep and comprehensive modernization so that they were more or less adequate to the modern day, and major repairs, at least to Arkh and Severstal for sure.
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 24 March 2015 21: 35
                  +2
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  For reference, their first 4 Ohio were in absolutely good condition and in good condition. About the state of Severstal

                  And what about Severstal? Walks on the Barents Sea, the anniversary was 25 years last year. Most of the Ohio submarines are much older, I am for the proposal of Perseus with both hands, a very formidable thing can happen if you approach it wisely.
                  Hot work has begun at Admiral Nakhimov, cable lines are being changed and equipment is being purchased.
                  1. Anton Gavrilov
                    Anton Gavrilov 25 March 2015 11: 48
                    0
                    Severstal has long been out of the way! And your photo is already very old!
                    1. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 25 March 2015 19: 36
                      0
                      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                      Severstal has long been out of the way! And your photo is already very old!

                      And how old are you?
                      1. Anton Gavrilov
                        Anton Gavrilov 27 March 2015 17: 48
                        +1
                        This photo is already a half dozen at least.
            2. Dry_T-50
              Dry_T-50 24 March 2015 17: 02
              +2
              Yes, even if some oligarch buy something as a yacht, it’s still better than cutting this miracle of the Soviet military-industrial complex
          2. Andrey NM
            Andrey NM 25 March 2015 09: 43
            +1
            If you convert 941 to Sineva, then you are tormented to divide the complex on-board. Or you have to cram two at once, for the starboard and port side. Well, actually, they did just that on the BDkh, they added 12 to 4, stood two control panels. First 12 had to be released, and then separately another 4. A complete series did not work. But the cabin is right at the checkpoint, you can command from the pillow smile . I envied them ... I’m stomping myself, the devil knows where ... A joke. In fact, it was important when the control exits on the tenth day already had a head from lack of sleep, no one could sleep.
      2. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 24 March 2015 09: 41
        +4
        As for the submarines, it is not noticeable. 1 Severodvinsk. In America, 60 multipurpose submarines out of 60 submarines 30-40 are constantly on patrol in the oceans of the seas, etc. etc. And how many? Or do you think 1 Severodvinsk, in which case the entire American submarine fleet will endure?
        1. Ze Kot
          Ze Kot 24 March 2015 18: 20
          0
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          Or do you think 1 Severodvinsk, in which case the entire American submarine fleet will endure?


          Is Severodvinsk a "submarine hunter" in order to "carry out the news of the submarine fleet?"
          1. Lt. Air Force stock
            Lt. Air Force stock 24 March 2015 18: 33
            +2
            Severodvinsk is a multi-purpose submarine, one of the tasks of multi-purpose submarines is to hunt enemy submarines.
            1. Ze Kot
              Ze Kot 25 March 2015 16: 54
              0
              Quote: Lt. air force reserve
              Severodvinsk is a multi-purpose submarine,



              Multipurpose is most often worse than highly specialized.
      3. nnz226
        nnz226 24 March 2015 16: 32
        +1
        During Soviet times, the same NSR plant in Severodvinsk annually (!!!) launched 5-6 boats, including missile carriers. Of course, "less is better than nothing", but! The decommissioning of boats of the 2nd and 3rd generations is proceeding at such a pace, and even under the EBNut Prize, the launch boats do not compensate for the losses in the submarine forces. And once again about the quantity: no matter how good the Yasen (M) nuclear submarine is, it alone will not block the Atlantic, the scale of the ocean (and the Pacific, all the more so) will be bigger. And in order not to let the convoys of the American foe into Europe (see the scenarios of the conflict between NATO and Russia or, earlier, the Warsaw Pact), at least a dozen of such boats should be deployed in the Atlantic alone. And only 8 of them are planning. Part of it will go to the Pacific Fleet, and what will we do in the event (God forbid!) Of a conflict ?! "One in the field is not a warrior!" is a Russian proverb.
        1. Lt. Air Force stock
          Lt. Air Force stock 24 March 2015 18: 36
          +1
          Quote: nnz226
          and what will we do in the event (God forbid!) of a conflict ?! "One in the field is not a warrior!" - this is a Russian proverb.

          Sometimes it seems to me that the general epaulettes serve to flaunt them and to amuse their vanity, and not to solve issues of ensuring Russia's defense capability ...
          Modern generals have forgotten the horrors of the 41st, when our army was unprepared for war, and had to build up military power during the war. If they were abandoned in the 41st year, when the generals were in headquarters 10 kilometers from the front line and risked not only personnel but also their lives in that army, then they might have been more careful about the number of weapons. 1 additional submarine can save hundreds of thousands of Russians in case of war, this should not be forgotten !!!
        2. Per se.
          Per se. 24 March 2015 21: 42
          +4
          Quote: nnz226
          And in order not to allow convoys of the American adversary to Europe (see scenarios of the conflict between NATO and Russia or, earlier, the Warsaw Pact), such boats only in the Atlantic need to deploy at least a dozen.
          It hardly makes sense now to rely on scenarios of attacks by Atlantic (or Pacific) convoys of the United States and NATO, whether we have at least hundreds of torpedo boats, the times of "wolf packs" in the struggle for the Atlantic are in the past. Our Baltic Fleet and Black Sea Fleet are blocked in the straits, this has been demonstrated many times before, especially in World War II. Blocking TF and SF is more difficult for the United States and NATO, but the boundaries of blocking the La Perouse and Tsushima straits, the Kuril Islands zone, with the inclusion of the Japanese fleet in the Pacific Ocean, have long been identified. In addition to ensuring dominance in the Pacific Ocean, which the ships of the 3rd and 7th US fleets should do, hydroacoustic observation systems have been deployed from Pearl Harbor to the Aleutian Islands. In the Atlantic, these systems are deployed from the East Coast of the States to South America, supremacy at sea should be ensured by the combined forces of NATO, creating a blocking opposition to our Northern Fleet from Scandinavia to Svalbard and Greenland. Most importantly, we must take into account that the beginning of a large-scale war will lead to the use of nuclear weapons, where the main goal and task of our boats are not individual ships or convoys, but ports, shipyards, industrial areas and enemy cities. In this regard, we need boats capable of delivering such strikes, be it missile-type "Borey", multipurpose type "Ash" or diesel-electric with VNEU. The main goal of our boats should be precisely the "cause" (ports, shipyards, cities), and not "consequences" (ships, convoys). With the total domination of the enemy at sea, the tactics of Admiral Doenitz from World War II should not be counted on, especially since the Germans lost the battle with all their wonderful boats. For the United States, "unacceptable damage" must be guaranteed, only this can be a guarantee of our defense (where, how many and which boats are required for this is another question, but in the Arctic it is easier to do this).
      4. holgert
        holgert 24 March 2015 16: 53
        -1
        And you yourself have a head somewhere ??? Count them and us ----- and cry !!!! And share their praises by99999.99999
    2. holgert
      holgert 24 March 2015 16: 51
      0
      Bravo !!!! Better and you will not say ------ TIME !!!!! It is disastrously small, but idle talk --- full box !!!!! Work and labor -----.....
  3. Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov 24 March 2015 07: 52
    +7
    Everything is adorned and presented in the appropriate style.

    Severodvinsk is a new word of technology primarily for us, it was this ship that brought us to the 4 generation, so to speak (Boreas are not 4), but to say that with its appearance we got a technological advantage to put it mildly early.

    Here comes the lead Ash-M, and then we start talking about the technological advantage.
    1. xtur
      xtur 24 March 2015 15: 52
      +1
      > Everything is decorated and presented in the appropriate style.

      here the people went - the article described several weapons systems that this boat clearly has an advantage over any American submarine, but there are people who stubbornly say that amers have everything

      instead of general answers "everything is not so simple", it is necessary to give specific counter examples on the weapons systems that the amers have and they are not inferior to the Severodvinsk system
      1. Anton Gavrilov
        Anton Gavrilov 24 March 2015 16: 48
        +4
        It's not about weapons systems, but about the fact that this ship is a whole!

        I’ll put everything on the shelves in my article! If there are no serious problems with the study and other things, I want to start publishing it on the anniversary of the introduction of the main one. It’s very large, now with 34 pictures of the full page and about 2 / 3 of the total the volume is approximately, so it will take a lot of time to finish it, I can’t catch it by the anniversary, in general, I’m working and moving forward.

        Here in it I will bring you and not only everything as it should.
        1. xtur
          xtur 24 March 2015 22: 55
          0
          > Here in it I will tell you and not only everything, and I will give it properly.

          well - wait :-)
          1. Anton Gavrilov
            Anton Gavrilov 25 March 2015 10: 52
            0
            Wait) There will be something interesting) wink
  4. Yurmix
    Yurmix 24 March 2015 08: 15
    +3
    Quote: Evgeniy667b
    Unless of course the military-political situation allows. And shouting cheers and expressing enthusiasm is simply inappropriate

    Why is it inappropriate? The military-industrial complex is working well, otherwise the Yankees and other rabble would not squeal like pigs, because Russia is limitless and endangers the world order with its weapons. It says a lot.
    1. Evgeniy667b
      Evgeniy667b 24 March 2015 08: 55
      +7
      At one time, I happened to be a participant in the implementation of one submarine project, a very solid series. Launched and put into operation at 6 units per year without noise and exclamations. The ships were very successful, some VO participants can confirm this, without any advertising. So the military-industrial complex needs to work, and not just one for many years.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  5. Professor
    Professor 24 March 2015 08: 35
    0
    The hull of the submarine was made of special high-strength low-magnetic steel, which allows it to dive to a depth to 600 meters, which makes the ship almost inaccessible to all types of existing anti-submarine weapons.

    Mine-torpedo Mark 60 CAPTOR, working depth up to 914 m, delivered to the deployment area either by submarine or bomber.


    1. slavik_gross
      slavik_gross 24 March 2015 08: 57
      +4
      one small nuance, it must still be discovered ... And so this is a turd ...
      1. Professor
        Professor 24 March 2015 11: 08
        -9
        Quote: slavik_gross
        one small nuance, it must still be discovered ... And so this is a turd ...

        Do not read Soviet newspapers before dinner, they will write about silent nuclear submarines, which is not even possible in theory, because the nuclear submarines always spin, flow and murmur (you know the reactor needs to be cooled ...). If it were a question of NAPL then it would be possible to dream.
        1. spiolist pas harp
          spiolist pas harp 24 March 2015 13: 10
          +4
          Quote: Professor
          Do not read Soviet newspapers before dinner
          Read less on strategy.com overnight. And then, you know, it turns out "in your own eye ..." etc.

          We are frankly glad that we do not know all the nuances and performance characteristics of the RF weapons. Who knows - he is silent. And for the "partners" it will be "Pfto? Do not you like to tell? This is pggavilno, pggavilno ... Then there will be a surprise!"
          And you continue in the spirit of "all-propaloputinslilprosrallipolymers all * oops" ... Apparently, from there you still know better to assess the current state of the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Finance of Russia. Carry on, it keeps us entertained. lol
          1. Denis_469
            Denis_469 24 March 2015 20: 28
            +3
            Treat the Israeli calmer. They still do not dare to declassify the death of their submarine. The most quiet and inconspicuous in official propaganda. There even from the IAEA they said not so long ago that Israel told them that it would keep the death of the boat with the entire crew as secret as possible. Understand - a tragedy in Israel - they lost their child prodigal there forever. And with nuclear weapons on board. Because of what they know about her death at the IAEA. And since they have drowned their wunderwafles, they are rolling on us. You need to understand them. Just imagine: they received a gift for a wunderwafle - a modern submarine. They fought on it a bit and lost it from some kind of prehistoric torpedo of a Syrian patrol ship. It’s pity and insulting to tears ... here the Israelis are breaking into what they are breaking through.
    2. Anton Gavrilov
      Anton Gavrilov 24 March 2015 10: 15
      +7
      + Do not forget about the latest enemy torpedoes, such as the tigerfish and the latest version of the MK-48. They have a great depth of immersion, not a single modern boat can hide in depth by maneuver, only self-defense can fight back.
      1. goose
        goose 25 March 2015 08: 40
        0
        Well, why, hiding - at full speed at a depth of 500m, it is almost not vulnerable to MK48m5. But you need to watch MK50, because it has a range of 2 times more and other characteristics better than that of the MK-48. Even Ash can hardly break away from it if it knows about the presence of a torpedo at a distance of about 3 km.
        But in any case, even the MK50, has a chance against the 4th generation submarine only if it is not known to the submarine that it was detected.
    3. Ascetic
      Ascetic 24 March 2015 12: 53
      +6
      Quote: Professor
      The Mark 60 CAPTOR mine torpedo, operating depth up to 914 m, is delivered to the deployment area either by submarine or bomber.



      MTPK-1 is a universal mine-torpedo anti-submarine complex. It was adopted by the Navy of the USSR in 1983 to destroy low-noise nuclear submarines. In terms of combat capabilities, he surpassed the Captor mine-torpedo. designed to destroy enemy submarines of various classes and types at depths from 100 to 1000 m.
      The installation can be carried out from 534-mm submarine torpedo tubes at depths of up to 300 meters and cruising speeds of up to eight knots, either from surface ships at speeds of up to 18 knots, or from anti-submarine aircraft from altitudes not exceeding 500 m and at flight speeds of up to 1000 km / h.
      Currently in our Navy is in service universal target broadband bottom mine-rocket - offshore mine (MSM). It is a combination of a bottom mine with an underwater rocket. The mine is installed on the ground at depths of up to six hundred meters and is able to ensure the fight against modern and promising submarines and NK in an area with a sufficiently wide defeat width.
      Submarine mine weapon

      Universal deep-sea homing torpedo UGST (UGST torpedo)
  6. mimrikov3
    mimrikov3 24 March 2015 08: 52
    +1
    Just so that we are not disturbed by a wave of disarmament. At one time, under such slogans they ruined a lot of everything necessary for defense. Democrats are capable of anything. In real life, the country should be led by one leader, or, as they said before, the Leader. Our so far is doing pretty well.
    1. Zigmars
      Zigmars 24 March 2015 09: 01
      +1
      The leader is good. But the economy is more important.
  7. Zigmars
    Zigmars 24 March 2015 08: 56
    +5
    Quote: Evgeniy667b
    And shouting cheers and expressing enthusiasm is simply inappropriate

    I do not see anything inappropriate in being proud of my homeland. That's right: in the bottom line, everyone needs to honestly do their job, but at the same time, do not whine and know your own worth. To admire what is truly admirable is a very good moral incentive.
  8. Zigmars
    Zigmars 24 March 2015 09: 39
    +2
    Information about "Yasen" is extremely scarce, but looking at the cost ... one gets the impression that the boat is good.
    And yet 8 is not enough.
  9. Denis_469
    Denis_469 24 March 2015 09: 42
    10
    Unfortunately not. With all the technical superiority of the boat over the Virginia of the 3rd series, the latter are built very mass-production, and 885 will remain piece-wise. To compete with boats of the 885 project, you need to build at least 30 of them. And the plans have the construction of only 8 submarines. War is such a thing that leads all normal people to understand that one or more of the most advanced submarines cannot do anything in war. For war you need the number of boats. A single quality submarines can, of course, do a lot. In theory. But they cannot play a significant role in the course of the war. For example, Germany had a series of submarines nicknamed the "formidable thirties". From "U-31" to "U-41". Almost each of the boats entered the club 100000 tons. They fought smartly, but they didn’t make a special contribution to the war. Although in some campaigns it happened that they returned to the base with 54 victories ("U-35" in the 11 military campaign) or 40 victories ("U-35" in the 10 military campaign). On average, from each campaign brought from 5 to 25 victories. But shipping even then was too large to be interrupted by single boats. Even the most perfect. The refusal of the convoy system leads to the fact that the boat needs to chase each ship separately. As a result, out of every 10 ships at sea, at least 8 successfully arrive at destination ports. Suppose that I believe that the 885 project boat can sink 20-30 targets in 1 military campaign. But even "U-35" will not be able to repeat the results in quantitative terms. I can’t imagine that 885 could bring 40 victories or 54 victories from the campaign. No, theoretically this is possible, because RCC 32 pieces and torpedoes are. If for each piece, then that's enough. Only shipping is now no match for what happened during the 1st World War. And ten times more. During World War I, tonnage was about 1 million gross tonnage. And now about 1 billion 100 million gt. And why do I compare it with the 1st world, because history is cyclical. And in a future war, NATO and its allies will provide protected shipping corridors for the movement of individual ships without security. According to the same scheme that was used during the 1st World War. Convoys will not be massively, because there are no guard ships on them. And 885 can successfully deal with convoys - there are a bunch of targets in one place and you can quickly discharge and start returning to the base for new ammunition. And for single vessels she will have to chase after each. And out of every 10 she will miss pieces 7-8. Plus, her position will always be known and now merchant ships can simply be bypassed. It is always possible in the ocean. So here is my opinion about why boats 885, with all the qualitative superiority, can not compete with the American Navy and much to do during the war. Just for your reference, I will say that out of the world tonnage at the beginning of the 1st world at 20 million grt, the share of "U-35" is more than 500000 grt. How much will the project boat 885 have to sink in order to raise its share of tonnage to a similar value in World War 3? Can he? No, he can’t. More precisely, it is unlikely to be able to. Because single or small-scale super-quality submarines - it's just to amuse the vanity and the ruler of the country and its navy.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 24 March 2015 10: 12
      0
      You will also remember how the problems with the new torpedoes turned out for the Germans at the beginning of the war, and these are "flowers", if you compare it with what can happen if problems with the same "Bulava" somehow manifest themselves at the most crucial moment.
    2. Anton Gavrilov
      Anton Gavrilov 24 March 2015 10: 17
      +9
      For reference, 1 Ash and 6 Ash-M, this is an 2011-2020 GPV order, and this summer they say 2015-2025 GPV, + there will be another GPV until the 30 year. So these 6 ash-M orders are far from the last.
      1. Tektor
        Tektor 24 March 2015 11: 59
        0
        A war requires the number of boats. And single quality submarines can, of course, do a lot. In theory. But in the course of the war, the role can not be significantly provided. For example, Germany had a series of submarines nicknamed the "formidable thirties". From "U-31" to "U-41". Almost each of the boats entered the 100000 ton club. They fought smartly, but they did not make much of a role in the war. Although in some campaigns it happened that they returned to the base with 54 victories ("U-35" in the 11th military campaign) or with 40 victories ("U-35" in the 10th military campaign) ...
        So it is so ... But the boats of that period were about the same level. And imagine among them the Nautilus Captain Nemo boat ... If the boat has an important advantage, then it becomes a wunderwaffe, i.e. able to control a significant area in key areas of the oceans. The main advantage now is information awareness and performance characteristics of weapons ...
        In order to complete GPV2020, it is necessary to lay 3 more boats of the 885 project for this and next year. Different posts provided different data on the total number of these boats planned for release: from 10 to 16. In my opinion, the optimal figure would be 14: 2 - in scheduled repairs, and 12 - ensure the constant presence of at least 2 boats in each ocean.
        On the other hand, qualitative progress has now been made in the development of battery parameters. And, it seems, the old Varshavyanka will now be able to qualitatively improve its performance characteristics. They should also not be discounted.
        1. Denis_469
          Denis_469 24 March 2015 13: 12
          0
          Quote: Tektor
          it’s like that ... But the boats of that period were about the same level.

          No, then the boats were no less different than they are now. There also went a distinction across generations of submarines. This is now considered by generations of boats from World War II. And not only here. In fact, there were more generations. And boats of different generations fought in World War I. And they differed very much. And artillery armament, and torpedo armament. Installed surface running motors. Swimming range and diving depth. Some of the boats at the end of the war were generally booked for the hull and deckhouse. So, for example, the Germans in World War 2 had boats conditionally of their 1st generation called "Desiderata". After them were naval diesel boats. From naval diesel boats, by the end of the war, a generation of medium cruising boats emerged. And by the middle of the war, a new generation of merchant submarine cruisers had emerged. By the end of the war, the Germans had a 1nd generation of cruising submarines in the form of large cruisers and large cruiser minelayers. And this is not counting the initially small boats of the "UB" and "UC" types, which gradually evolved into medium-sized submarines. Few people know about all this now, therefore they believe that then all the boats were approximately the same. But in fact, they were different and were even of different generations.

          Quote: Tektor
          If the boat has an important advantage, then it becomes a prodigy, i.e. able to control a significant area in key areas of the oceans.

          It will not be able to - it’s banal ammunition is not enough to control everything or much. It will use up ammunition and leave.

          Quote: Tektor
          The main advantage now is information awareness and performance characteristics of weapons ...

          Not certainly in that way. The number of weapons has not been canceled either. And the Americans know this. Therefore, they created a small-caliber torpedo specifically for the destruction of surface targets. And take them 2 per rack instead of 1 "Mk-48". But their main targets in a future war from the surface will only be boats, and our boats will have large ocean vessels. For which 533 mm is not enough. But here, as I see, very few people understand that, in addition to the quality of torpedoes, the total supply of torpedoes on the boat is also very important.

          Quote: Tektor
          In my opinion, the optimal figure would be 14: 2 - in scheduled repairs, and 12 - ensure the constant presence of at least 2 boats in each ocean.

          For peacetime this quantity is not enough, since half of the boats will be under repair. If you want to have 12 boats in the sea all the time, you need to have at least 24 boats of this type in general.

          Quote: Tektor
          On the other hand, qualitative progress has now been made in the development of battery parameters. And, it seems, the old Varshavyanka will now be able to qualitatively improve its performance characteristics. They should also not be discounted.

          And I don’t discount them. And in World War I, the Germans, besides boats of that type, had many others. I just write that no quality submarines can replace the quantity. And no quality of torpedoes or missiles can replace their quantity. A boat will almost always meet targets more than it will have ammunition.
  10. bolat19640303
    bolat19640303 24 March 2015 09: 47
    +1
    What the mass media of a likely adversary write about the Russian fleet in this spirit is certainly good. But they cannot be trusted 100%. Intimidating his layman, extra money for the military budget is knocked out so.
  11. rudolff
    rudolff 24 March 2015 11: 18
    +9
    The modernized Ash can compete with some American project, like the Wolf or Virginia, but not with the submarine fleet as a whole. Considering that Yasen is going to replace all multipurpose nuclear submarines in service, eight hulls for two ocean-going fleets, this is almost nothing. Even in the best times of the Soviet fleet, the KOH never exceeded 0,5 in our country, and in the Americans it never dropped below 0,5 and sometimes reached 0,7. Of these eight, we will be able to put at a time on the BS in the ocean zone from the strength of 2-3. The rest will be at the bases in preparation for campaigns, in the BP areas, at the delivery of coursework, at all types of scheduled repairs, reloading reactors, etc. In other words, in order to make real competition for the Americans, Ash needs 12-16 corps for each fleet. Given their cost, this is almost unrealistic, even with subsequent weapons programs. In this regard, the termination of the construction of the Shchuka-B series is not clear. The ship is not much inferior to Ash in its characteristics, its production is well mastered, at a cost much cheaper. It is not a problem to integrate Caliber on the Pike. But Garnets on this project, as well as on other submarines, have long been gone. By agreement with the "partners". As of the beginning of the 2000s, no more than a hundred items remained in storage at all arsenals. Whether there is still anything left now is a big question.
    1. Anton Gavrilov
      Anton Gavrilov 24 March 2015 13: 18
      0
      Here, get excited about the fact that not much inferior is necessary. The 3-generation and 4-generation are fundamentally different, much more stringent requirements for technology, a much higher level of technology.
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 24 March 2015 15: 07
        +7
        I'm not getting excited. Ash was founded in 93rd year. The project was developed back in the 80s. It was not possible to realize everything that they wanted initially. Many enterprises, design bureaus, research institutes involved in the implementation of the project simply bent down during this long-term construction. In the end: "I blinded you out of what was." In reality, the fourth generation may be seen only in a modernized version. But the 971st project has been brought almost to perfection and has absorbed all the best that the industry can give. Nerpa, this is practically the fourth generation. The presence of the SAC bow sphere and the central location of the torpedo compartment are not yet signs of progress. Elk has had a similar configuration for many decades. Perhaps the Pike only lacks vertical launchers, non-penetrating optronics, and a "one-time" reactor for the life of the ship. Everything else is implemented by the normal evolution of the project.
        1. Denis_469
          Denis_469 24 March 2015 15: 25
          0
          Quote: rudolff
          yes "one-time" reactor for the life of the ship.

          A one-time reactor for the entire service life at the modern level of development is clearly evil. During reloading of the reactors, they look at the internal state of the reactor and its serviceability. And who can guarantee that after 20-25 years of operation the reactor will be safe if you do not look inside it for its condition? The reactor is a technique. A technique can wear out and break.
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 24 March 2015 16: 19
            +1
            A "one-time" reactor is, as it were, one of the hallmarks of the fourth generation. Just like stealth technology in aviation. In any case, the acquisition of new qualities to the detriment of others, and even more so at the expense of reliability, is not permissible. As for me, if the reloading of the reactor according to the regulations is coupled with the average repair of the ship, then it makes no difference whether it is a "one-time" reactor or a rechargeable one.
            Maybe you are right. Moreover, the life of the ship can be extended for the life of the reactor.
        2. Anton Gavrilov
          Anton Gavrilov 24 March 2015 17: 05
          0
          For reference, Severodvinsk is our first nuclear submarine built completely from scratch, and without the use of backlogs of unfinished / recycled submarines.

          You apparently do not understand, or do not want to understand, different generations, these are generally different requirements for the ship as a whole, this is a fundamentally higher level of technology in general.

          Design features such as the spherical main antenna of the HAC, and the on-board arrangement of the SLTs, there are no requirements for the 4 generation of submarines, these are technical solutions, and nothing more.

          And for reference, in general terms, according to the most so-called step parameters, such as stealth, detection range, search capabilities, maintaining a low-noise speed, the capabilities of self-defense and weapons, the capabilities and level of the RTV-Ash tree surpasses Schuku-B not by 1 order , about what Ash-M will be like, I generally said nothing better.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. gjv
      gjv 25 March 2015 11: 44
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      reactor reboot

      The developers promised a reactor life of 25-30 years without recharging. Does not work?
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 25 March 2015 13: 31
        +1
        gjv, answered in a pm.
  12. Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 24 March 2015 11: 39
    +8
    I read the article, very interesting and informative. Inspired by:
    "I asked ash" -
    Where is America now
    You are still at the "Poplar"
    And ... t, I asked! "
    So, in the order of delirium fellow
  13. Igor75
    Igor75 24 March 2015 12: 04
    +2
    I immediately recall an example - the Panther, Tiger super tanks, and the T-34 workhorse. It shows that the quality-quantity ratio is of great importance. A single prodigy is a tactical, but not strategic, unit.
  14. Kornilovets
    Kornilovets 24 March 2015 12: 53
    0
    Better than nothing, now we need to move on to single copies, to mass construction, and the cost of building ash M will decrease ....
  15. turanchox
    turanchox 24 March 2015 14: 43
    -1
    Their fears can be understood, given that the Project 971 boats are armed with S-10 Granat cruise missiles, equipped with a nuclear warhead with a capacity of 100 kt and having a range of up to 2500 km.

    what is this, a joke?
  16. Budilnik
    Budilnik 24 March 2015 21: 27
    0
    Missiles on them are not enough. .
  17. litus
    litus 24 March 2015 23: 55
    0
    in addition to the new Ash-trees, a deep modernization of 10 nuclear submarines of other projects for onyx and caliber is planned. So, do not drop a tear, that there isn’t enough Ash-trees. Everything will be fine!
  18. Zomanus
    Zomanus 25 March 2015 09: 35
    +1
    The boat is certainly super. On the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet such a place. And where it’s smaller and closer, you can launch Varshavyank. And about the use of weapons. This is a weapon from the Syaz series. If such a boat began to use weapons, then a great world war began. So if we see the shooting, it’s only training.
  19. goose
    goose 25 March 2015 12: 47
    0
    Quote: Anton Gavrilov

    And for reference, in general terms, according to the most so-called step parameters, such as stealth, detection range, search capabilities, maintaining a low-noise speed, the capabilities of self-defense and weapons, the capabilities and level of the RTV-Ash tree surpasses Schuku-B not by 1 order , about what Ash-M will be like, I generally said nothing better.

    This is probably you all minus without argument?
    How would you prove the point of view.
  20. red_october
    red_october 25 March 2015 20: 35
    0
    That would have put on stream the production of diesel engines pr. 363,3 and so forth. "Lada". And then they will put 6 pieces. to the Black Sea Fleet, fulfill the Vietnam contract and ... that's it?

    Cheaper and more affordable submarines would be a good help both in the inland seas and in connection with the same "Boreas"; “Ash” is not enough for everything: their main business is to get on the Yankees' nerves at their own shores.