Submarines of the project "Ash"

108
Submarines of the project "Ash"


How Russian fourth-generation nuclear submarines were created and what they were capable of

A little over a year ago, the Naval fleet Russia entered the K-560 submarine Severodvinsk - the first multi-purpose submarine of the Yasen project, aka the 885 project. And the first submarine, laid not in the Soviet Union, but already in Russia: the Severodvinsk bookmark took place in 1993.

For obvious reasons, the construction of the first ship of the project "Ash" stretched over 20 years. But despite this, “Severodvinsk” as the main submarine of the project and the rest of the submarines, which should be put into service before the 2020 year, fully meet the challenges of the times, and the concept of the modern navy. Although the fate of the fourth-generation submarines was very, very difficult ...

We need fourth generation submarines!


The beginning of work on fourth-generation submarines can be attributed to the second half of the 1970-x. The topic was taken up simultaneously in the USSR and in the USA - the main rival powers of the bipolar world competed with each other in all areas.

In the Soviet Union, three main design bureaus were engaged in designing the next-generation submarines: Leningrad Rubin and Malachite and Nizhny Novgorod Lazurit. In accordance with the then prevailing naval doctrine in the new generation, nuclear submarines of all three basic types were to appear: with ballistic missiles, with cruise missiles and multi-purpose. The first and second, as usual, were engaged in “Ruby”, the third - in “Malachite” and “Lazurite”.

Designers "Rubin" was to create a nuclear submarine cruiser with cruise anti-ship missiles. It is these boats in the West called the "killers of aircraft carriers." The Lazurit specialists took up the creation of an anti-submarine submarine - the same as that developed a bit earlier in the same design bureau of the 945 "Barracuda" submarine with a titanium hull. And in “Malachite” they worked on the most promising project - a multi-purpose submarine capable of carrying on board both torpedoes, cruise missiles, and torpedoes.

Creating a new generation of weapons, unless it is conducted in a war, is never fast. So work on the new Soviet submarines dragged on until the second half of the 80's. In proportion to the effort and improvement of the characteristics of future boats grew and their price, and the complexity of construction and maintenance. And finally, the moment came when it became clear: it would not be possible to maintain the former multiplicity of strike submarines in the Russian Navy. It was necessary to look for an option that would be able to combine the capabilities of both torpedo submarines, and boats with cruise missiles, and anti-submarine submarines.

Create one of the three good submarines


This option ultimately became the project 885 "Ash" Leningrad KB "Malachite". The new "malachite" submarines were to become the first Russian submarines of such a wide specialization. However, this decision, being completely revolutionary for our country, was successfully applied in other states. And the changing configuration of world politics and the obvious change of calls that the navy has to accept, said that such universal boats would very soon take the lead in the fleets of the whole world.

The basis for the Malachite project - and at the same time the boats that were to be replaced by the new submarine - were the multipurpose submarines of the 705 (K) Lyra and 971 Schuka-B projects and the 949A cruise missiles “ Antey "aimed at combating aircraft carrier links. It was clear that in appearance, which provided the greatest underwater speed, the new boats would be similar to the Lyra and Pike-B, and in size, allowing them to deploy cruise missile launchers, to the Antei.


Project 705K. Photo: topwar.ru

But there were no such projects in the USSR before. In fact, the designers of “Malachite” had to repeat the feat of Mikhail Koshkin, designer of T-34, to create a universal submarine in a burst of illumination, capable of solving practically any tasks, except maybe strikes with ballistic missiles. It is not surprising that such a difficult task required more time for its implementation. The project, which could be launched in the series, was only ready for 1990 year. That is, just when the country ceased to exist, ordered such an unusual submarine. And it was completely incomprehensible who, how and when would give the order to start building a new submarine of the 885 “Ash” project, which was to become the basis of the submarine fleet of the USSR - a state that was no longer there.

Twenty years and nine days of the prehistory of the first "Ash"

Despite the catastrophic blows that the new Russian authorities inflicted on their main and only allies, the army and the navy, there were cold heads in the country who understood that if no new boats were laid now, then perhaps no one will ever build them. And they managed to get 21 of December 1993 of the year on Sevmash to lay the first submarine of the 885 “Ash” project. The new boat was added to the lists of the Navy ships on 11 days earlier - December 10 1993 of the year, and received the K-560 board number.

"Severodvinsk" - namely, the name of the new boat acquired by its birthplace - became the first warship laid down in post-Soviet Russia. But for the first few years it seemed to everyone who was involved in the construction of new ships for the Russian fleet that it would be the last. Because the boat was mortgaged, and then, it seems, they forgot. In any case, the financing of the construction of this submarine, like all other boats laid earlier, in the last years of the Soviet Union, slowly but surely faded away. And by the year 1996 came down completely: the construction of the boat was stopped for eight long years.

During this time, quite a few events happened that determined the further fate of the boat. In 2001, it was decided to redesign the boat already under construction on the 08850 project - with new equipment and upgraded weapons. At the same time it was planned that the refined and completed boat would be launched after four years. But this time could not be sustained. By this time, they had only time to complete the formation of the solid body of Severodvinsk, and the launching was postponed for another five years.

The new deadlines turned out to be more realistic - not least because the management and employees of Sevmash, seeing that their efforts were not only not in vain, but were again in great demand, worked with all their might. 15 June 2010 of the year “Severodvinsk” left the berth shop in the floating dock “Sukhona”, and nine days later, on June 24, the boat was launched into the water.

On the first sea trials, the submarine came out only over a year later - 12 September 2011 of the year. And after more than two years, 30 December 2013, “Severodvinsk”, which managed to make 14 sailing to the sea with a total duration of 222 day, several thousand miles and make more than a hundred dives, was officially adopted by the Russian Navy. It’s possible to say that the date is round: exactly 20 years have passed by this time - and 9 more days ...


Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin and Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov at the ceremony of laying the fourth-generation nuclear submarines at the PO Sevmash enterprise in Severodvinsk. Photo: / RIA News


Family of Seven "Ash"


24 July 2009, when there was still a year before the launch of Severodvinsk, the same submarine of the same class, Kazan, was laid at the same enterprise, Sevmash. More precisely, almost the same: for the years that have passed since the first X-ray of 16 was laid out, the project has been significantly upgraded. So, both Kazan and the following submarines are considered to be built according to the 08851 project, also known as Yasen-M.

There are no significant differences in the design between Severodvinsk and its actual sister-spikes of the 08851 project. Experts mention only the optimized contours of the boats of the modernized project, which should have a positive impact on speed and noise. But in the equipment there are more than enough differences! After all, even at the Severodvinsk some types of equipment incorporated in the project at the time of their actual installation were replaced by more modern ones, what can we say about Kazan and other boats.

The first and most important difference between the boats of the 885 and 08851 projects is the element base. In the “stuffing” of the first “Ash”, which is natural for a boat designed at the sunset of the USSR, there were a lot of units, mechanisms and devices that were manufactured at the enterprises of the fraternal Soviet republics. It was not possible to completely abandon the elements actually released in foreign countries by the time the first boat was equipped, although much has already been replaced by Russian components and assemblies. But on the “Kazan” Russian everything - as they say, from the first rivet to the last posting. And not just Russian, but brought, upgraded or designed over the past 10 – 15 years. It is not by chance that in open sources one can find a lot of information about Severodvinsk, which often appeared earlier than the boat itself left the slipway shop. But about “Kazan” and others - almost nothing.

Meanwhile, today in the family "Ash" is listed as five submarines. In addition to the first "Severodvinsk" and the head "Kazan" is the submarine "Novosibirsk", "Krasnoyarsk" and "Arkhangelsk".

Novosibirsk, which has been assigned the K-573 tail number, was laid on Sevmash four years after Kazan: July 26, 2013. According to forecasts, it should be put into service no later than 2019 of the year, and some optimistic experts believe that earlier, perhaps, already in 2017.

K-571 “Krasnoyarsk” was laid down in the North Sea shipyard a year after Novosibirsk, July 24 2014. And less than a year later, 19 March, 2015, Arkhangelsk was also founded there. Both of these boats should be commissioned no later than 2020 of the year - at the same time as two more submarines of the project "Ash", which are planned to be laid before the end of this year. The laying of the last, seventh boat of the project, according to the general director of Sevmash Mikhail Budnichenko, is scheduled for 2016, and the entry into service is for 2023 year.

The seven submarines of the Yasen and Yasen-M projects should cost the Russian budget a total of 258 billion rubles. The most expensive, as is usually the case with new projects, were the head boats - “Severodvinsk” and “Kazan”: each of them cost 47 billion rubles. The remaining five boats are worth less - just 32,8 billion rubles each. However, against the background of the total amount of appropriations for the construction of new warships for the Russian Navy, which should be allocated before 2020 year - and this is 4 trillion rubles! - This price does not look too high. Moreover, our fleet has not received new atomic multipurpose submarines for a very long time - since 2001, when the submarine K-335 “Gepard” of the project 971 “Pike-B” entered service.


Submarine "Kazan", which tested the prototype of the SJC "Irtysh-Amfora", Severodvinsk. Photo: pilot.strizhi.info
Atomicin, which in Russia has not yet been

What are the submarines of the project "Ash" (together with the "Ash-M") in terms of design, equipment and weapons? And in what way is their affiliation not to the well-proven third generation of submarines, but to the new, fourth?

Start with the design. The submarines of the “Ash” project are one-and-a-half, i.e. the light outer hull covers the inner solid not completely, but only partially: spherical - in the bow, light superstructure - in the center, in the felling area and starting from rocket mines to the stern. This is an absolute innovation for domestic nuclear submarines, which have always been a double-body. To go to such a radical step designers have forced the demands of the military to make the boat as less noisy as possible, and therefore as inconspicuous as possible. After all, it is the external light hull that plays the role of a kind of resonator for all the noise that a submarine can make.

The durable hull of the boat is divided into nine compartments. In the first, whose length is 12 m, is the central post - so to speak, the brain of the boat. And from here the exit to the strong cabin is laid, to the emerging rescue chamber, in which the whole crew of the "Ash" can fit - 90 people. The second compartment length 9,75 m - torpedo. Such an unusual arrangement of torpedo tubes — almost in the middle of the boat, and even at an angle to the longitudinal axis — has also never been used on domestic multipurpose nuclear submarines. As a rule, torpedo tubes are located in the nose section - but on the Yasen it is all occupied by the antenna of the hydroacoustic complex. The third compartment length 5,25 m occupy general ship devices and mechanisms, the fourth, 9-meter, reserved for medical and residential premises.

Remarkably, the second, third, and fourth compartments account for almost half of the total length of the robust hull, and it is here that there is practically no light hull - not counting the superstructure. But further, starting from the fifth rocket compartment of length 12,75 m, the boat becomes a classic double-hull, while the robust hull sharply decreases in diameter. The sixth compartment with a length of 10,5 m - reactor, seventh and eighth, having a length of 12 m - respectively, the turbine and auxiliary.

Missiles, torpedoes and torpedoes


But by itself, a boat without weapons and control systems is just a metal hull, even if it was designed to meet the most modern requirements. A submarine becomes a real warship when all the equipment intended for combat operations is installed on it.

And from this point of view, the submarines of the project "Ash" have surprisingly powerful equipment! Perhaps we should start with eight rocket mines, the caps of which are located behind the wheelhouse fence. In them are located the transport and launch containers of cruise missiles of the operational-tactical complex “Onyx” - the main weapon submarines of projects 885 and 08851. Each mine contains four containers with cruise missiles, so that the total ammunition of the boat is 32 missiles. Moreover, on-site Onyx, if necessary, you can install strategic long-range cruise missiles X-101 (or X-102, if the missile has a nuclear warhead).

In addition, the standard armament of the Yasen submarines includes the Caliber missile system, which includes anti-ship cruise missiles, cruise missiles to destroy ground targets and anti-submarine missiles. All these elements can be fired from the torpedo tubes of the boat or from the transport and launch containers in the launch shafts.

Finally, we should not forget about the traditional armament of submarines - torpedoes. The submarines of the project "Ash" are used specially created for them universal deep-sea self-guided torpedoes UGST: their ammunition is 30 pieces. Moreover, all the torpedoes of the traditional 533 mm caliber: the use of heavier 650 mm torpedoes on this project’s boats was already abandoned during the construction of the Severodvinsk, although they were still present in the draft design of the boat.


Bookmark the leading ship "Severodvinsk". Photo: militariorgucoz.ru
Very quiet submarine with very sharp hearing

Special mention deserves the sonar complex of submarines of the project "Ash" - the eyes and ears of these multi-purpose submarines. It was for the main element of the complex, the spherical antenna Amphora, that the designers sacrificed the classical placement of torpedoes in the nose compartment. And for the first time in stories domestic submarine forces all processing of hydroacoustic information is carried out exclusively by software. For this, in particular, the Ajax-M digital data acoustic library is used. The whole hydroacoustic complex is sometimes mistakenly named after her, although in reality it bears the more complex name “Irtysh-Amfora-Ash”, since in this form it is intended for the submarines of the 885 and 08851 projects.

Despite the fact that such technical and software solutions that have been used abroad for a long time, were a novelty for Russian designers, the characteristics and combat capabilities of domestic developments are in no way inferior to foreign analogues. Moreover, this assessment is given not only and not so much by Russian experts, but primarily by their foreign colleagues. It was they who were the first to sound the alarm about the appearance of the Severodvinsk submarine as part of the Russian Navy. After all, the sonar complex of submarines of the project "Ash" allows these boats to detect the enemy before he does. Moreover, according to foreign experts, the nearest competitors of fourth-generation domestic submarines - the American "Sea Wolf" and "Virginia" are subject to such early detection using the Irtysh-Amfora-Yasen complex.

But not only the ability to "hear" the enemy scares foreign experts and seamen. No less unnerving and significantly lower than the previous domestic submarines, the noise of the submarines of the project "Ash". Separate efforts were made to achieve so low noise of the boat - and they were crowned with success. So, the main power plant of the boat - the KTP-6-185SP reactor with a water-water steam generating unit KTP-6-85 - is a single vessel in which the reactor and its first cooling circuit are mounted. Due to this decision, it was possible to get rid of large-diameter steam pipelines and circulation pumps, which provide a significant part of the noise of modern atomic submarines. True, this, unfortunately, does not apply to the first boat - “Severodvinsk”: they did not have time to produce a new integral reactor and installed run-in on third-generation submarines VM-11, which is much more noisy.

We have already said that it was possible to reduce the noise of the submarine due to the one-and-a-half structure. In addition, the submarines of the project "Ash" used an active noise cancellation system, which is equipped with the foundations of all critical nodes, and the traditional rubber-cord shock absorbers of devices and mechanisms have been replaced by much more efficient spiral cable, non-combustible. The main propeller, a seven-blade propeller of a special design, also works to reduce the noise level of the submarines of the “Ash” project.

Untranslatable Yasen


In a word, even taking into account the fact that more than three decades have passed from the start of designing the first fourth-generation submarine of the Yasen type to its entry into service, these submarines now fully correspond to modern tasks and challenges. Moreover, six of the seven submarines of the project will be built on its upgraded version, which involves the use of much more modern mechanisms and equipment than the original. According to both Russian and foreign experts, at least until the middle of the XXI century, submarines of the project "Ash" will be able to perform all the tasks assigned to them. And by that time - and there is every reason to hope for it - the fifth generation submarines, which, by the way, foreign experts initially attributed to "Ash", will already go into service with the Russian Navy: these new Russian submarines turned out to be very unusual.

By the way, a remarkable fact, indirectly indicating the actual attitude of foreign military to the project "Ash". Of all the Soviet and Russian naval submarines that were put into service, only these in the NATO classification are denoted by the same name - Yasen (sometimes on the project’s main boat, Severodvinsk). The formal explanation is simple: by the end of 80, all the 25 letters of the Latin alphabet, which the Soviet submarines traditionally denoted in the North Atlantic Alliance, have ended. That, however, did not prevent twice using, for example, the letter "T": in the word Typhoon - to designate submarine missile carriers of the 941 project "Shark", and in the word Tango - to designate submarines of the 641 project "Som". But, apparently, “Ash” turned out to be so breakthrough submarines that in the West they decided to leave their own name behind them - and quite rightly. The Russian submarine of the fourth generation was in all senses untranslatable.
108 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    6 August 2015 06: 57
    We need fourth generation submarines!
    still ... yesterday I already noted that the states accepted the 12th "Virginia" (about a classmate) into operation .. and we still have one "ash"! is the alignment visible?
    1. +6
      6 August 2015 07: 43
      Better less chatter. and more submarines !!!
      1. +3
        6 August 2015 11: 09
        after about 3-4 years, see for yourself! how will mass revenues go to the fleet.
        and submarines and surface ships ....
        just need to wait - a little bit !!!
        1. jjj
          +6
          6 August 2015 12: 41
          Not so simple, friends. Head repair already required
          1. 0
            7 August 2015 13: 42
            THAT, and only .... There is no repair there.
        2. +2
          6 August 2015 13: 47
          God forbid, everything also needs to be developed by naval aviation.
        3. 0
          6 August 2015 21: 40
          Quote: remy
          after about 3-4 years, see for yourself! how will mass revenues go to the fleet.

          In order for mass receipts to go, mass bookmarks must first occur. And with them it is not very - the situation with the Boreas is more or less decent, unless.
      2. +3
        6 August 2015 19: 47
        Quote: Evgeniy667b
        Better less chatter. and more submarines !!!

        You are right ... but Ash is not a cheap pleasure, unfortunately. It is because this MAPL has absorbed all the best that has been accumulated by the years of our scientists and designers, it is the best nuclear submarine in the world. And it is not for nothing that its layout is on the table at the Amer admiral.
        You need a lot of them, and this is obvious. But if once the whole country (15 republics) gave birth to Sharks, now everything is different and this must be understood.
        Best regards hi
    2. +4
      6 August 2015 08: 48
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      "ash" we still have one! is the alignment visible?

      The wartime alarmists -
      1. +22
        6 August 2015 09: 57
        Quote: Angry Guerrilla
        The wartime alarmists -

        Of all the "Pike" on the move, 4+ "Ash" in trial operation.
        At the Pacific Fleet none on the go multipurpose boat. What kind of panic can we talk about?
        Compare with the USA: Los Angeles -26 on the go,
        Seawulf -3 on the move,
        Virginia -11 on the move.
        Total 40 multipurpose
        We chop them all with a saber into cabbage.

        On torpedoes. What did the author mean by special torpedoes for the Ash? In Russia, torpedoes developed in the 60s, which are inferior in speed, range and guidance to the US ones, are being developed some new ones but have not heard of readiness.
        No matter how some leader of Russia came up with the idea that we do not need boats, or Sevmash just straightened its shoulders, it’s a pity how it will be.
        1. +1
          6 August 2015 10: 15
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Virginia -11 on the move.
          12th .... crying
        2. 0
          6 August 2015 18: 16
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          On torpedoes. What did the author mean by special torpedoes for the Ash? In Russia, torpedoes developed in the 60s, which are inferior in speed, range and guidance to the US ones, are being developed some new ones but have not heard of readiness.
          No matter how some leader of Russia came up with the idea that we do not need boats, or Sevmash just straightened its shoulders, it’s a pity how it will be.

          There are caliber rocket torpedoes with a range of 50 kilometers, a torpedo there APR-3M.
        3. +2
          6 August 2015 23: 17
          Yes. 40. BUT! they are guarded by 10 aircraft carriers of at least 2 each.
          = 20 Elk.
          20 left.
          the US does not have diesel-electric submarines, but we do. And our military doctrine is defensive, unlike the United States.

          count yourself
          Northern Fleet (14 units!): K-119 "Voronezh" K-410 "Smolensk" pr. 949A. K-560 "Severodvinsk" pr. 885
          K-317 "Panther" pr. 971, B-534 "Nizhniy Novgorod" pr. 45A and B-414 "Daniil Moskovsky" and B-138 "Obninsk" pr. 671RTMK K-335 Cheetah "pr. 971U and B-336 "Pskov" pr. 945A B-261 "Novorossiysk" B-585 pr. 677 "Lada" B-471 "Magnitogorsk" B-800 "Kaluga" B-459 "Vladikavkaz"
          Pacific Fleet (9 units!): K-456 "Tver", K-186 "Omsk", K-150 "Tomsk" pr. 949A B-260 "Chita", B-345 "Mogocha", B-464 "Ust- Kamchatsk ", B-494" Ust-Bolsheretsk ", B-394. B-190 "Krasnokamensk" B-187 "Komsomolsk-on-Amur"
          BF (1 unit!): B-262 "Stary Oskol"
          TOTAL: 24 boats in combat
          how many people, so many opinions, depending on how you look at it.
        4. +1
          7 August 2015 13: 47
          Pike-B running exactly 1-Panther with SF. Leopard and Wolf on Zvezdochka, Boar and Cheetah on Nerpa, but this year should go out of repair. The tiger is in an unfit condition.

          From the TOF Bratsk and Samara on the Zvezdochka under repair, Sperm whale at the NPS stands, Magadan at VTG at Zvezda, they promise to withdraw this year, but the Kuzbass is not known for sure.

          Total 100% chassis only Panther .... Of the 11 boats .... This year, the truth will be 4-5, but nonetheless.

          This is our situation ...
      2. +4
        6 August 2015 10: 14
        Quote: wicked partisan
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        "ash" we still have one! is the alignment visible?

        The wartime alarmists -

        and utryakalok:
    3. -2
      6 August 2015 09: 09
      Ashes have a few drawbacks:
      1 - universal boats of type 885 are equally unsuitable for any task.
      2 - they are too expensive for mass production. And units of boats in wars do not solve anything at all.

      The truth is that the Americans are seams. Just today the last 3 boats 783-785 were declared emergency. All have malfunctions in nuclear power plants. Even the 783, which had just come out of a major overhaul. All I series boats also have limitations. The first boat of the II series also has a limitation. So in the USA, too, not everything is so good. A 783-785 recognized limited usability.
      1. +6
        6 August 2015 12: 23
        Quote: Denis_469
        2 - they are too expensive for mass production. And units of boats in wars do not solve anything at all.

        Ash-M: ~ 30 billion rubles, Virginia - $ 1,8 billion. At the same time, Ash is a much more powerful submarine.
        1. -3
          6 August 2015 12: 26
          Can you read? I wrote for serial production. That is, if necessary, rivet pieces of 100-300 in a series. So you wrote that the cost of 1 boat is 30 billion rubles. And how much will 100 such boats cost? That's right - 3 trillion rubles. This is crazy money.
          1. +7
            6 August 2015 15: 56
            Quote: Denis_469
            Can you read? I wrote for serial production. That is, if necessary, rivet pieces of 100-300 in a series. So you wrote that the cost of 1 boat is 30 billion rubles. And how much will 100 such boats cost? That's right - 3 trillion rubles. This is crazy money.

            Bgggg, who is riveting 100 submarines right now?))) A nuclear submarine, generally a piece of goods. Well this is not a boat from the Second World War. The same Virginia Americans are going to build 24 pieces. Teach a materiel soldier
            1. 0
              6 August 2015 16: 11
              Quote: Stirbjorn
              Bggg, who is riveting 100 submarines now?)))

              100 pieces are really nobody. But pieces of 20-30 - this is anyone. True, Iran is there, or North Korea or China is able to rivet and 100 pieces in a series and 300. There would be a need. It’s true not about nuclear boats, but about diesel.

              Quote: Stirbjorn
              A nuclear submarine, generally piece goods. Well this is not a boat from the second world.

              I understand that history is evil? Like pseudoscience? If not evil, then it is clearly visible that even 100 submarines for the war is not enough. And if someone wants to win the war, he rivets large series of submarines. Or anti-submarine ships from their opponents. 1 boat, even the coolest and with the best commander, can do nothing to win the war. The weight of her actions throughout the war will be near zero. I've been making a chronicle of submarine attacks and I can say that I can find in them the attacks of the most successful submarines such as "U-35" (World 1), "U-48" (World 2) or "SS-237" (USA, 2 world) or "Upholder" (England, world 2) or "K-21" (USSR, world 2) or "I-20" (Japan, world 2) is very, very difficult. The contribution of these fine submarines with elite commanders dissolves in the total number of attacks and victories of their fleets.

              Quote: Stirbjorn
              The same Virginia Americans are going to build 24 pieces.

              Something I do not remember about 24 boats. A lot more:
              I series - SSN-774-777 - 4 boats
              II series - SSN-778 - 783 - 6 boats
              III series - SSN-784 - 791 - 8 boats
              IV series - SSN-792 - 801 - 10 boats
              V series - SSN-802 - 805 - 5 boats
              A total of 33 submarines that have already been ordered by the industry.
              Plus to this:
              it is planned to order another 6 submarines of the V series, so that their total number is 10 pieces
              order 5 boats of the VI series
              order 5 boats of the VII series
              Total planned to order another 16 submarines. So, to have 20 submarines with the VPN module (10 V series and 5 VI and VII series each).

              In total, plans to build 49 submarines.
              1. +2
                6 August 2015 17: 08
                Quote: Denis_469
                True, Iran is there, or North Korea or China is able to rivet and 100 pieces in a series and 300. There would be a need. It’s true not about nuclear boats, but about diesel.
                Only if dwarf. Dizelyuhi normal, like our Varshavyanki displacement three times less than Ash. Naturally, they are easier to build; again, a reactor is not needed. And even in China there will not be fifty of them, counting the old ones at all. I am silent about Iran with the DPRK in general - only babies.
              2. 0
                6 August 2015 19: 53
                The contribution of these beautiful submarines with elite commanders dissolves in the total number of attacks and victories of their fleets.

                I understand that you are talking about "packs of wolves." I'm not sure that this tactic is acceptable to modern conditions - specifically regarding nuclear submarines: they are more like self-sufficient submarine battleships. Diesels, apparently, will justify themselves in group attacks on enemy formations.
                1. 0
                  6 August 2015 19: 54
                  Quote: Eugene-Eugene
                  I understand that you are talking about "packs of wolves."

                  No, I'm talking about the fact that one boat is not able to do anything. Even the best with the best commander.
              3. +1
                7 August 2015 00: 19
                Quote: Denis_469
                I've been making a chronicle of submarine attacks and I can say that I can find in them the attacks of the most successful submarines such as "U-35" (World 1), "U-48" (World 2) or "SS-237" (USA, 2 world) or "Upholder" (England, world 2) or "K-21" (USSR, world 2) or "I-20" (Japan, world 2) is very, very difficult.


                Incorrect comparison - WWII submarines attacking with torpedoes from periscope depth, or during ascent and submarines with cruise missiles, with the possibility of launching a dozen cruise missiles in a short time No.. Now even one submarine can fight, and even more so that it will fight along with surface ships, aircraft and coastal anti-ship systems.

                Quote: Denis_469
                even 100 submarines for war is not enough.


                um um ... it turns out no country in the world wants to fight, well, maybe the US is thinking lol but where are they more than 100 boats to make good
          2. +2
            6 August 2015 18: 44
            Quote: Denis_469
            That is, if necessary, rivet pieces of 100-300 in a series.

            Bolivar can't stand that much
            Quote: Denis_469
            And how much will 100 such boats cost? That's right - 3 trillion rubles. E

            not right, if 100, then they will cost about 2.3trl.
            Series however.
            Only expensive anyway
            PS 30bn-figure is not true, crap
        2. +1
          6 August 2015 18: 51
          Quote: Stirbjorn
          Ash-M: ~ 30 billion rubles, Virginia - $ 1,8 billion. At the same time, Ash is a much more powerful submarine.

          ? Where do you get those numbers?

          On 11.2014
          the price of Severodvinsk, according to some estimates, exceeds 110 billion rubles, approaching, therefore, the price of Sivulfa. It is assumed that the cost of serial boats will succeed reduce to 70-80 billion, however, it will still be significantly more expensive than that of Virginia, whose price today is in the region of 60-65 billion rubles at the exchange rate, and too expensive for that. to use Ash-tree as the main submarine.
          and it all started with 47 billion rubles

          The Russian 885 project, in fact, was the answer precisely to the appearance of the Sivulfa project and the Astute class, but not the USS Virginia (SSN-774)

          and you need to compare with him
          Sivulf was created specifically for spearfishing on promising Soviet boats. Alas, promising Soviet submarines never appeared, and nobody needed a “super-hero” for 3 billion dollars.


          Seawolf's total ammunition amounted to 50 units of cruise missiles or torpedoes or missile torpedoes or or 100 mines

          we have 8 mines x 4 missiles and 10 TA.
          1. 0
            6 August 2015 19: 24
            Quote: opus
            whose price today is in the region of 60-65 billion rubles at the exchange rate

            60-65 billion rubles, this is 1 billion dollars, not a single Virginia in life is worth it and never will be, the first submarines cost 2,6 billion apiece, it is planned to reduce the cost to 1,8 billion (this is somewhere around 100 -110 billion rubles).
            Quote: opus
            Seawolf's total ammunition amounted to 50 units of cruise missiles or torpedoes or missile torpedoes or or 100 mines

            Virginia has almost the same ammunition as Sivulf, 12 + 26 + 4 = 42, only torpedo tubes are half as much.
            1. 0
              6 August 2015 20: 14
              Quote: Lt. air force reserve
              60-65 billion rubles, this is 1 billion dollars,

              I am inclined to a figure of 110 billion US dollars.
              Where did the legends about our cheapness come from (especially I won’t understand the Navy).
              I will explain:
              Yes, our salaries are relatively lower than there, but
              1. Labor productivity is 2-3 times lower
              2. The shipyard in Murmansk, not a shipyard in Los Angeles, on one heating during 13 months from 12 you will lose more than on salaries.
              3.Logistics (just take a look at country breakdowns and production distribution, everything will become clear)
              4. Mass, the more, the cheaper, and this is not only for submarines, but also for components.
              5.Electronics, we are forced to buy someone else's, or by ourselves (layer-by-layer electronic scanning of circuits), then try to dazzle ourselves
              6. Technological capabilities, well, just not comparable.
              7 and so on
              Quote: Lt. air force reserve
              Virginia has almost the same ammunition as Sivulf, 12 + 26 + 4 = 42, only torpedo tubes are half as much.

              12 vertical launchers of the KR “Tomahawk” (boats of the Block I and Block II series) and ONLY 2 launchers of the turret type according to the 6 KR “Tomahawk” (Block III boats)
              Total we have
              B1 and B2 = 12
              B3 2x6 = 12

              All...



              The main differences between the Virginia Block III series submarines (also known as Batch 2) and the Block I and II series submarines (Batch 1) will be the replacement of the bow spherical antenna HAC with the new Large Aperture Bow (LAB) antenna, and replacing the 12 vertical bow launchers of Tomahawk cruise missiles with two universal nose modules Virginia Payload Tubes (VPT) with a diameter of 2,1 meters, capable of being used to accommodate each of the six Tomahawk cruise missiles, as well as another target load

              ===============
              The ammunition is not the same, it makes no sense to compare
              1. 0
                6 August 2015 20: 23
                Quote: opus
                ===============
                The ammunition is not the same, it makes no sense to compare

                I meant comparable ammunition, Virginia 42, Sivulf 58. This is not a French baracud with 24 weapons.
                1. 0
                  6 August 2015 21: 37
                  Quote: Lt. air force reserve
                  I meant comparable ammunition, Virginia 42,

                  not comparable
                  16 Tomahawks and 26 Garpunov (provided torpedoes = 0, mines = 0) are not equal to our database

                  Quote: Lt. air force reserve
                  This is not a French baracuda with 24 weapons.

                  I didn’t remember Baracud
              2. 0
                7 August 2015 00: 52
                Quote: opus
                Where did the legends about our cheapness come from (especially I won’t understand the Navy).


                Probably from there that the final price is really cheaper at times, because:
                - labor productivity is offset by lower pay
                - it's cold (Russia has something to drown)
                - logistics (Further, but the cost of logistics is lower by "km" of the way
                - mass production - in series 50 pieces - 100 pieces the difference with a series of 10 pieces will not be very big, except that R&D will be scattered more. With 1000 series, mass production can reduce the cost even more, but in the navy, such "circulations" are not built.
                - Electronics, in cases with Russian components, the difference will reach many times .., in the case of a purchase abroad, it may end up being more expensive.
                - The whole point is that at the USA military enterprises Chinese machines, pencil sharpeners, light bulbs under the ceiling cannot stand - there is basically everything USA or European

                So the difference is many times. hi
                1. -1
                  10 August 2015 17: 07
                  part of the estimate for the construction of boats we do not take into account, especially
                  new technologies used - no one buys patents, sale rights, no one deducts a percentage of the use, etc.
                  Only the "net" production cost is taken into account.
                  they do not take into account the assistance of the structures controlled by the military-industrial complex, and the Americans have "all-inclusive" estimates, with the only difference that sometimes the use of inheritance from other projects - infrastructure, developments, personnel, etc. is not included.
      2. +6
        6 August 2015 13: 15
        In modern warfare, even one surviving boat can cause irreparable damage to the enemy. I am inclined to think that it is better to have several unique boats than a regular flotilla.
        1. 0
          6 August 2015 14: 27
          1 boat, even a waffle-boat, is not able to cause unacceptable damage to the enemy. If it’s not a nuclear ballistic missile ship. 1 boat - it can be said that zero. She can do a lot, but in the amount of war she cannot do anything alone.
          1. -1
            6 August 2015 18: 20
            Quote: Denis_469
            . 1 boat - it can be said that zero. She can do a lot, but in the amount of war she cannot do anything alone.

            If 1 boat is in the right place at the right time with its ammunition, it can break such firewood that it doesn’t seem enough, look at the amount of weapons on board the Ashen.
            1. +1
              6 August 2015 18: 29
              Quote: Lt. air force reserve
              If 1 boat is in the right place at the right time with its ammunition, it can break such firewood that it doesn’t seem enough, look at the amount of weapons on board the Ashen.

              The number on board is negligible when you look at the number of targets. In the world more than 1 billion gross tonnage. As the Chinese experience has shown, even an accurate missile target system does not guarantee accurate homing of missiles specifically for the desired target. At least the Chinese anti-ship missile launched by an American aircraft carrier preferred a passenger airliner to an aircraft carrier. Since it was larger and the target was fatter. And after that launch, the PLO got on its ears and there was no second attack on the aircraft carrier.
              So here - when launching missiles on an aircraft carrier group, it is not at all a fact that missiles will be aimed at it, and not at the transports located in the district.
              In the area, the navigation of merchant ships, missiles will not always be able to distinguish aircraft carriers from the total number of targets. Since just the size of the targets and the brightness of the mark does not mean at all that the target will be an aircraft carrier or UDC. Because the world is full of transports in size and tonnage of more nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. And missiles can corny choose such transports as their goals. Instead of an aircraft carrier or UDC on which they were issued.
              1. 0
                6 August 2015 19: 41
                Quote: Denis_469
                The number on board is negligible when you look at the number of targets. In the world more than 1 billion gross tonnage. As the Chinese experience has shown, even an accurate missile target system does not guarantee accurate homing of missiles specifically for the desired target. At least the Chinese anti-ship missile launched by an American aircraft carrier preferred a passenger airliner to an aircraft carrier. Since it was larger and the target was fatter. And after that launch, the PLO got on its ears and there was no second attack on the aircraft carrier.
                So here - when launching missiles on an aircraft carrier group, it is not at all a fact that missiles will be aimed at it, and not at the transports located in the district.
                In the area, the navigation of merchant ships, missiles will not always be able to distinguish aircraft carriers from the total number of targets. Since just the size of the targets and the brightness of the mark does not mean at all that the target will be an aircraft carrier or UDC. Because the world is full of transports in size and tonnage of more nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. And missiles can corny choose such transports as their goals. Instead of an aircraft carrier or UDC on which they were issued.

                AUG or a large combination of ships is a very contrasting target (they are located at a distance of up to 10 kilometers from each other), in addition, it is possible to establish nuclear warheads (refer to nuclear weapons), nuclear weapons in Russia are more than strategic weapons, there is no exact data, but the United States writes that Russia has only about 8500 nuclear warheads, if 1550 is removed from this number under the START 3 treaty, it turns out that Russia has 6950 nuclear warheads.
                1. 0
                  6 August 2015 19: 52
                  Quote: Lt. air force reserve
                  AUG or a large connection of ships is a very contrasting target (go at a distance of up to 10 kilometers from each other)

                  Transports are also very contrasting targets. Plus, it’s not at all a fact that there will be no even larger transport in the aircraft carrier’s area, at least in the form of that ill-fated passenger liner passing near the aircraft carrier at the time of the rocket’s arrival.
                  As for nuclear warheads, when homing missiles on vehicles and conventional warheads, Granite can be enough. And to shoot only missiles with nuclear warheads - this is not enough for the state budget. If for each transport of 30-40000 gbt on a rocket with nuclear warheads apply. Such vehicles as dirt, because it is a standard serial self-loading bulk carrier.
                  There is one option - the most powerful anti-ship missiles, so that you can implement the principle of 1 rocket = 1 target. Those. for an aircraft carrier or UDC to be disabled or drowned in just 1 missile hit. Because in the sea, additional transports and missiles may well partially creep into larger transports, and only part of them will go to an aircraft carrier or UDC.
                  1. 0
                    6 August 2015 20: 03
                    Quote: Denis_469
                    Transports are also very contrasting targets. Plus, it’s not at all a fact that there will be no even larger transport in the aircraft carrier’s area, at least in the form of that ill-fated passenger liner passing near the aircraft carrier at the time of the rocket’s arrival.

                    Granite rockets could also carry out target selection when carrying out an attack on the AUG, first the main target was an aircraft carrier, then the secondary Ticonderogs and Arly berki, I am sure on Onyx such a system was further developed.
                    It was said about this system in a program that Granite missiles can classify targets on approach and perform automatic distribution of missiles in one salvo for different targets. So at least a merchant ship can be distinguished from an aircraft carrier by a rocket.
                    Quote: Denis_469
                    There is one option - the most powerful anti-ship missiles, so that you can implement the principle of 1 rocket = 1 target. Those. for an aircraft carrier or UDC to be disabled or drowned in just 1 missile hit. Because in the sea, additional transports and missiles may well partially creep into larger transports, and only part of them will go to an aircraft carrier or UDC.

                    Up to 1000 kg of powerful explosives, the warheads of Soviet anti-ship missiles seem to have reached, there’s nowhere to increase it, otherwise the size of the missile will increase even more, and the ammunition on ships will become even smaller, besides such a large missile will not be able to maneuver.
                    1. +1
                      6 August 2015 20: 14
                      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
                      I am sure on Onyx such a system was further developed.
                      It was said about this system in a program that Granite missiles can classify targets on approach and perform automatic distribution of missiles in one salvo for different targets. So at least a merchant ship can be distinguished from an aircraft carrier by a rocket.

                      This is only a real war can confirm or deny.

                      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
                      Up to 1000 kg of powerful explosives seemed to reach the military units of Soviet anti-ship missiles, there’s nowhere to increase it, otherwise the size of the missile will increase even more

                      Onyx and Caliber warhead weight is less. And they do not meet the criteria 1 rocket = 1 target. An atomic aircraft carrier will not disable a single Onyx or Caliber hit. They have too low warhead weight for this.
                    2. 0
                      10 August 2015 17: 14
                      an aircraft carrier, because of the design and size, is extremely difficult to drown 1 by hitting anywhere. Probably the only way is to break the ship in half. The growth of the caliber to achieve such a goal, in my opinion, is completely unjustified. Here it is necessary to make a decision for reasons of unification, so that rockets can be hollowed not only by aviks.
                      As for the missile’s maneuver, consider how much superior it is to the aircraft carrier’s maneuver. At a distance of 100 km, turning 30 degrees even for a large missile is a very simple task.
                  2. 0
                    7 August 2015 00: 11
                    Quote: Denis_469
                    Plus, it’s not at all a fact that there will be no even larger transport in the aircraft carrier’s area, at least in the form of that ill-fated passenger liner passing near the aircraft carrier at the time of the rocket’s arrival.

                    how is he crammed into the order? who will let him go there?
                    Quote: Denis_469
                    There is one option - the most powerful anti-ship missiles, so that you can implement the principle of 1 rocket = 1 target.

                    there is one carrier problem.
                    powerful PCR not a harpoon that can be placed on a canoe, 7 ton granites of 1,2 carriers and all
                    Quote: Denis_469
                    UDC was disabled or drowned in all 1 missile hits.

                    the corruption of 5 t. Bch is required, I'm afraid without the governor (if you do not take the MSC) well, how can I do
                    and the governor
                    Quote: Denis_469
                    enough state budget.
                    ?
              2. +1
                7 August 2015 00: 06
                Quote: Denis_469
                And missiles can corny choose such transports as their goals.

                Can not.
                1. The last (3,4,5) generation has a database of radar target reflection + combat target puts interference. The liner only boasts an illumination
                2. And earlier not very "could" (GOS generation2)
                In GOS, an original and effective technical solution was implemented. The selection principle was called the “rope polygon": from the group of goals after the review was selected Equidistant and most powerful target. This allowed a high
                in large numbers choose large ships as part of the order.

                If a passenger airliner climbed into a warrant .... what can you do, but a rocket launched on a warrant will never "turn off" a single liner, even if it is 5 miles away from the warrant
                3.AGM-84E (2-3 generation)
                Data location of target are introduced into the rocket computer before its launch. The flight on the marching section of the trajectory is carried out according to the data from the inertial guidance unit with correction from the SNA NAVSTAR. The inclusion of thermal-assisted seeker is carried out similarly to previous models of RCC. In this case, the data transmission subsystem is automatically turned on with the image of the homing field of view. This data is transmitted to the medium, where on the video terminal the operator selects the target or aiming point. Missile tracking ends after transferring this data to the missile homing system, and then the thermal imaging seeker works autonomously, captures and accompanies the target, ensuring its defeat.
                4.GOS III generation
                Characteristics of targets were developed in the GOS, which made it possible to carry out target allocation and target designation in a salvo of missiles without an operator. This feature is associated with complex logic of target selection against the background of interference (the liner does not create interference - selection, failure), as well as assessment of the conformity of goals with specified characteristics.
                5.GOS 4 Generation
                The on-board computer, integrated in the GOS, provides signal processing, control of the GOS modes, and the solution of the problem ideology goals, borrowed from the GOS complex "Granite" on the basis of game theory, and the issuance of command control of the rocket according to signals from
                GOS taking into account the level of opposition of the enemy(the liner is rotten silent, the enemy is resisting).
                6. In the 5 generation GOS, the synthesis of the antenna aperture is implemented,selection of all types of active and passive interference, as well as protection from their impact on the solution of tasks assigned to RCC
                Quote: Denis_469
                At least the Chinese anti-ship missile launched by an American aircraft carrier preferred a passenger airliner to an aircraft carrier.

                When was this? Am I missing something?belay
                1. 0
                  7 August 2015 04: 18

                  a missile launched on a warrant will never "turn off" a single liner, even if it is 5 miles from the warrant

                  And in vain: one of the most common tactics is when an aircraft carrier under cover of a submarine goes away from the warrant in radio silence, and a support vessel takes its place.
                  1. 0
                    7 August 2015 13: 55
                    Quote: Lance
                    And in vain: one of the most common tactics

                    How do you think the control center is issued on anti-ship missiles before launch?
                    They didn’t forget that before the capture of the GOS, the anti-ship missile goes along the ANN, where the aircraft carrier or warrant was illuminated?
                    1. If, on a tactical reception, the aircraft carrier walked alone and the control center was issued to it, it will fall into it
                    2. If, after the launch, the warrant and the aircraft carrier decided to "leave", then they have little time
                    (500 km: 2448 km / h = 0,20 hours = 30 minutes of flight time to the target and about 20 minutes to the "slide"), then at the first slide of the seeker (angle - / + 45/50 degrees), it will either capture a warrant or an aircraft carrier, or both and the on-board computer will choose, according to the algorithm, whom to "take"
                    liner distinguishes from an aircraft carrier
                    3.GOS (as well as Aegis or STS of Phalanx) can be confused only by the presence of 2x identical targets (by EPR, by coordinates, by attack range), then reset tracking and search for a new one, or the occurrence of a target near the target and the target to be attacked larger than the target (foil, dipoles, curtain of water with electrolyte), literally nearby, suddenly
                    4. I didn’t meet lonely hasting aircraft carriers without the cover of the URO cruisers (except ours, it’s understandable)
                    5. When warning about a missile or air attack, the warrant (marching) and so "crumbles". URO cruisers reach the line of fire, and the aircraft carrier accelerates and begins to sow aviation, all that it can
                    1. -1
                      7 August 2015 19: 06
                      Some kind of electronic naval battle from the shore along the AUG, which does not move laughing
                      Let's start with the data where the error is traditionally:
                      n. 0.
                      How do you think the control center is issued on anti-ship missiles before launch?
                      They didn’t forget that before the capture of the GOS, the anti-ship missile goes along the ANN, where the aircraft carrier or warrant was illuminated?

                      And where do such TSU come from? ..
                      Just do not write about the jambs of submarines, aircraft and satellites transmitting LiveVideo online. All of this will immediately crush and bring down in the first place, especially since this really is not.

                      Definition the exact location of the AUG at any time time is still an unresolved problem. And even more so, the determination of the order of ships in the order.
                      Therefore, the anti-ship missiles will receive the asset in the form of an area where, according to the latest detection, an order may probably be located. Or part of it. And therefore:

                      n1.
                      an aircraft carrier under cover of a submarine goes away from the warrant in radio silence

                      Will not hit.

                      nn 2-3.
                      liner distinguishes from an aircraft carrier
                      .. GOS (however like Aegis or STS Falanksa) can only confuse

                      Again, everything is as simple as in "Chapaev" - checkers with sheloban bang-bang, white in kings, black, with a rocket in the w-ne, at the bottom.
                      Those. the deployed air wing AB, E-2С with means of suppression, and EW missile warrants will not confuse?
                      In addition to various "aperture selections" and other clever things, EW means have such a factor as мощность. And the power of electronic warheads of anti-ship missiles cannot even be compared with Hokai, not to mention any ship.

                      n4.
                      I didn’t meet lonely hasting aircraft carriers without the cover of the URO cruisers (except ours, it’s understandable)

                      I have met.

                      5.
                      When warning about a missile or air attack

                      ..when probabilities attacks. "Sow" and immediately. see item 3
                      1. 0
                        7 August 2015 21: 16
                        Quote: Lance
                        And where do such TSU come from? ..

                        In my time:
                        -satellite
                        then aviation (a single low-speed turboprop hearing aid) - a suicide bomber, in fact.
                        Tk after 22x exited at the point of the intended launch, he would have to turn on the "sharp ledge" to the full, he did not have time to leave
                        the drums correct the attack data, drive it into the head, accelerate, start up, turn it away, try to leave on supersound
                        old men let in royal fish and any distracting trash
                        REP planes are trying to introduce dysfunction in the CIUS warrant and generally complicate the life of the enemy radar
                        *** optional: all commercial vessels (NI, seiner, bulk carriers, dry-cargo ships, ours, CMEA and friends)
                        *** The option of using civil aviation (Aeroflot) was not implemented, as I do not know now


                        Well, if for a submarine, then everything is the same, only they are transmitted through a bell to 3000bit / s (enough for the coordinates), or satellite. Pl are constrained in a maneuver, if only they came across them, on their screen


                        Quote: Lance
                        Determining the exact location of AUG at any point in time is still an unresolved problem.

                        1. In any is not necessary.
                        1,5 hours of spuntica were enough for the sector that the RCC could get
                        2. Previously, the issue was resolved (only some authors with topvar didn’t solve it for some reason), I hope in Russia they will solve (as promised) to 2016, on a completely different level (wrote), and at a lower cost
                        Quote: Lance
                        Therefore, the anti-ship missile system will receive the control unit in the form of an area where, according to the latest detection, it probably can

                        approximately 50x50 km (70 x50, depending on altitude) scan area, this is enough, but if in search mode, then more
                        Quote: Lance
                        factor like power. And the power of electronic warheads of anti-ship missiles cannot even be compared with Hokai, not to mention any ship.

                        I know, I’m gouging from this.
                        RCC has some advantages: EPR, speed, altitude, ANN data (to the point where it goes)

                        Quote: Lance
                        I have met.

                        lucky I have not met our
                      2. -1
                        8 August 2015 03: 30
                        What time is it, CMEA and fish, opus ?!

                        Satellites? Frequency coverage spans? And where are they?
                        And google cloud statistics for the northern hemisphere.

                        What are "slow-moving listeners"? WILL BE FILLED in 700 km!

                        What are the "REP planes"? Together with the "rumors" they have been feeding the fish for a long time!

                        What does it mean "trying to introduce dysfunction in the BIUS order" ?? This is a BU officer with a grenade inside, and not a plane for 1000 km.

                        What nonsense are you writing, not understanding that the tactics of application is a process in time and means, and not a stupid TTX comparison!

                        And returning to my post about the tactics of separating AB and warrants, about which there was a speech, and in response to which you, for some reason, Dumped EVERYTHING STUFFED BY UNHEADED LABOR)) Even on a googled one - from a square of 50 * 50 AB in an hour and a half and knocks down and accelerates and "SEEDS". The result is DOES NOT GET.
                      3. +1
                        8 August 2015 13: 35
                        Quote: Lance
                        What time is it, CMEA and fish, opus ?!

                        Our time, Comrade, who thinks he is a spear in the hands of an infantryman, is 1986-by 1990.
                        / Lance is not only a spear of a horse, but also a trepak: Lanza used to dance, they played lunch; will go first cross, and then each other to bust, one syudy, another syudy. Karelia.
                        /
                        Quote: Lance
                        Satellites? Frequency coverage spans? And where are they?



                        Quote: Lance
                        And google cloud statistics for the northern hemisphere.

                        why bang?
                        US-A radar, cloud cover by **, as well as US-P

                        Tselina-D, Tselina-R cloudiness does not interfere
                        From 1 hours to 1,5 span timing

                        There the film must be transmitted to the ground from the optical viewer (a satellite image with a resolution of 250 m has a volume of about 200 MB, our data transmission channels were still there)



                        Quote: Lance
                        And where are they?

                        repeat
                        Quote: opus
                        In my time:

                        now Lotus, Peony and Araks (the film no longer needs to be landed)
                        Quote: Lance
                        What are "slow-moving listeners"? WILL BE FILLED in 700 km!

                        yeah. The poor aviation of the USSR Navy.
                        Tu-95RC, Tu-16P "Bouquet" (Tu-16P "Yolka"), Tu-16РМ (2)
                        Quote: Lance
                        What does it mean "trying to introduce dysfunction in the BIUS order"?

                        Well, you’re a well-known daredevil
                        Quote: Lance
                        And google

                        Quote: Lance
                        What nonsense do you write, not understanding that the tactics of application is a process in time and means,

                        Who diagnosed about A?
                        you, or what? After dancing trepaka-lance?
                        do not laugh: "a process in time and space"
                        Quote: Lance
                        EVERYTHING LOADED BY UNSUCHABLE LABOR))

                        how do you like google. and necessarily "uryakryakalka" napist. E?
                        height 2/7 "0" forgotten. Yes?
                        Quote: Lance
                        Even googled

                        google ... it's like eczema, eaten into your bark.
                      4. -2
                        8 August 2015 14: 23
                        Zschik otseda materiel on missiles to teach laughing
                      5. 0
                        10 August 2015 17: 28
                        correctly said - the USSR solved the problem by 90 percent.
                        a network of surveillance satellites, communication relay vehicles, a large number of observing ships, reconnaissance aircraft, specially assigned submarines that control the movement of fleets. Do not forget that during the Soviet era about 70% of the land belonged to the countries of the socialist camp.
                        Special focal points have been created that constantly monitor new data. I think that within 1-2 days the country was able to provide fairly accurate coordinates of any aircraft carrier in the world.
    4. 0
      6 August 2015 18: 12
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      build 12th "Virginia" (about a classmate) .. and we still have one "ash"! is the alignment visible?

      It’s not suitable for Virginia’s firepower and Yasenu’s marks, Virginia has 12 vertical pu and 26 weapons in the torpedo compartment + 4 weapons in torpedo tubes.
      Ashen has 32 Onyx or 40 Caliber in vertical pu + 30 weapons in the torpedo compartment + 10 units in torpedo tubes.
      1. +1
        6 August 2015 20: 21
        Quote: Lt. air force reserve
        Ashen 32 Onyx or 40 Gauges in vertical pu + 30


        eight universal vertical launchers (VPU), each of which includes three mines (total 24) to launch cruise missiles from transport launch containers for various purposes.
        That's all, you do not confuse with Ohio (replacing a glass of ICBMs with a pencil case with CD), the sizes there are completely different



        VPU and torpedo tubes allow the use of - cruise missiles created at the Novator Yekaterinburg NPO: strategic 3М10 Grenade with a nuclear warhead (firing range up to 3000 km) and operational tactical 3М14 Caliber with conventional (firing range more than 500X885 km), which gives the XNUMX project boat the ability to deliver massive high-precision strikes against ground targets.

        Through torpedo tubes, you can use other "innovative" missiles - the supersonic anti-ship 3М54 "Biryuza" and anti-submarine 91Р, as well as put mines
  2. +3
    6 August 2015 07: 09
    The "Kazan" in the photo has an inflated bow as on the nuclear submarine of pr. 670M. In addition, the rudders are on the wheelhouse. Little similar to Project 885
    1. +2
      6 August 2015 07: 23
      Quote: qwert
      A little like project 885

      and this is not 885, but k-561, but a new "Kazan" project 08851 "Ash-M".
      1. -1
        6 August 2015 07: 56
        KS-403 "Kazan"
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +6
      6 August 2015 07: 25
      this is the "old" Kazan (project Axon) - alteration of 667a pr. into a test stand for hydroacoustic complexes, currently utilized at Severodvinskaya "Zvezdochka"
      1. jjj
        +1
        6 August 2015 12: 54
        There was also another experimental boat with unexpected contours - "Pear". There, too, tests were carried out
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. jjj
            +1
            6 August 2015 23: 38
            Well, it is understandable that the strategists were redesigned for "Pomegranate" on "Zvezdochka" But, as life has shown, it was on the "Pears" that the onboard torpedo tubes were tested. That is why I remembered this project in the context of the conversation about pr. 885.
            And with "Granatov" and RTMKs turned out to be more practical
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. jjj
                +1
                7 August 2015 11: 12
                Although there is an opinion that in the USSR they did not spare money for defense, they still knew how to count. And so it turned out "our way". And it cannot be said that he turned out to be wrong
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. jjj
                    +1
                    7 August 2015 13: 50
                    Quote from rudolf
                    and "to drag the service" ... sometimes there was no one.

                    I agree. "Hiroshima" was already archaic, and the service was dragging on. Etc. 671 in its reincarnations, especially RTM and RTMK, turned out to be a real hard worker, like the 971, which spun off from the expensive 945. As for my personal attitude to 885, although I understand its relevance and timeliness, I am still cautious in my assessments. Not all problems have been resolved yet
                    1. The comment was deleted.
  3. +1
    6 August 2015 07: 29
    And what is the expression of their belonging not to the well-proven third generation of submarines, but to a new, fourth?
    Interestingly, in what "did the 3rd generation prove itself badly", or did the author insert the phrase for a catchphrase?
    1. +1
      6 August 2015 09: 58
      Quote: kote119
      And what is the expression of their belonging not to the well-proven third generation of submarines, but to a new, fourth?

      on it were tested the new generation of gas-discharging systems (prototypes)
      1. +1
        6 August 2015 10: 38
        acoustics was tested on the 2nd generation (Axon - "Kazan"), and in his post which you quoted he expressed bewilderment about the author's statement about "not a successful third generation", something like that.
        1. 0
          6 August 2015 14: 45
          Quote: kote119
          "not a good third generation"

          And what did the Yankees call "roaring cows"?
          1. 0
            6 August 2015 16: 16
            1,2 generation, 3 belong to 971,945,949,941 - it's hard to say "roaring cow" about them
  4. +1
    6 August 2015 07: 45
    I’ve read the article and everything would be fine, but Ash is one for us! When will similar projects be launched - not 1 in 30 years, but 1 in 3 years? And this makes me sad ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. gjv
      +1
      6 August 2015 08: 01
      Quote: Kibalchish
      I read the article and everything would be fine

      The news is not about submarines.
      Mistral closed, and everyone laughs, everyone is happy.
      As the press service of the President of the Russian Federation announced on the evening of August 5, 2015, a telephone conversation took place between Vladimir Putin and French President Francois Hollande.
      The President of the Russian Federation and the President of the French Republic made a joint decision on the termination of the contract for the construction and supply of two landing ships and helicopter docks of the Mistral type, signed in June 2011.
      During the expert negotiations held in a friendly manner traditional for Russian-French relations, it was possible to come to a mutually acceptable agreement on the reimbursement of the funds paid under the contract to the Russian side, as well as on the return of the delivered Russian equipment and materials.
      France has already transferred the funds mentioned and after returning the equipment it will acquire the right of ownership and will be able to dispose of both ships.
      Moscow considers the Mistral issue to be fully settled.
      1. +1
        6 August 2015 10: 08
        Quote: gjv
        Mistral closed, and everyone laughs, everyone is happy.

        Just did not announce how much money the French transferred. But since the Kremlin is happy with everything.
      2. +1
        6 August 2015 13: 17
        The French returned us a billion euros. Just one more boat is enough. All the benefits are greater.
        1. 0
          6 August 2015 15: 00
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          The French returned us a billion euros

          And what about the equipment ?? And enlighten, a billion in the form of a contractual penalty? Or is it a reimbursement of our direct costs for the construction of ships ....... I would like to know what the laugh is from ...... if someone circled someone, then they can’t laugh? )
    3. -5
      6 August 2015 11: 22
      why do we need a lot of submarines. A submarine is a weapon of guaranteed retaliatory retaliatory strike. About 300 Amerian cities, we will destroy China and China in return, and for more, we are not Managers. And against the AUG the boats are useless, we cannot get the AUG off the coast of Antarctica.
      1. +1
        6 August 2015 14: 17
        Quote: New Communist
        we cannot get the AUG off the coast of Antarctica.

        Why do we need AUG off the coast of Antarctica? Really surprised.
    4. +2
      6 August 2015 14: 47
      Quote: Kibalchish
      When will similar projects be launched - not 1 in 30 years, but 1 in 3 years?

      And what have we learned to do in 30 years? Steal??
    5. +1
      6 August 2015 15: 50
      Quote: Kibalchish
      I’ve read the article and everything would be fine, but Ash is one for us! When will similar projects be launched - not 1 in 30 years, but 1 in 3 years? And this makes me sad ...

      Even such an economic giant as the United States builds a maximum of two boats per year at two shipyards, mainly one per year.
      Sevmash has gained a normal pace, the main thing is that politicians do not fit in and Newgorbachev does not appear.
  5. +6
    6 August 2015 08: 17
    The two most noticeable roughness in the article.
    The first concerns weapons, the second - NATO designations

    FIRST
    Moreover, in place of the Onyx, if necessary, you can install strategic long-range cruise missiles X-101 (or X-102, if the missile has a nuclear warhead).

    It is clear that the author wants to put on the boat something that no one else has. But alas. TPK in the mine - 8,9 meters. The length of the rocket "Onyx" without a launcher (that is, in an air variant) is 6,1-6,2 meters. Plus a starter with a length of 1,6-1,9 meters.
    X-101/102, which the author is going to put there - is exclusively an aviation version. Length about 7,6-7,8 meters. Add another starter 1,6-1,9 meters long. The length will be greater than the TPK in the current mine (9,2-9,5 meters).

    SECOND
    Of all the submarines adopted by the Soviet and Russian Navy, only these in the NATO classification are designated by the same name - Yasen (sometimes by the project’s lead boat - Severodvinsk). The formal explanation is simple: they say, by the end of the 80s, all 25 letters of the Latin alphabet that traditionally designated Soviet submarines in the North Atlantic Alliance were over. Which, however, did not hinder the use of, for example, the letter “T”: in the word Typhoon - for the designation of submarine missile carriers of project 941 “Shark”, and in the word Tango - for designation of submarines of project 641 “Som”. But, apparently, Ash-trees turned out to be such breakthrough submarines that in the West they decided to leave their own name behind them - and rightly so. The fourth-generation Russian submarine was in every sense untranslatable.

    Not only on the above. designations with the same letter. Project 945 received the designation Sierra, and design 971 designation Shark... As for Ash, in the west it had and has, as far as I remember, the designation GRANAY. The name YASEN may be. Honestly, I have not met, although it is possible, since all Yankees have already been written off. The name by the name of the head - yes, there are also on this project - SEVERODVINSK and on the Borey project. There he is really designated as BOREY or Yuri Dolgoruky
  6. +1
    6 August 2015 09: 27
    I don’t see anything new in the article, the same song from month to month flavored with another bullshit about the X-101, the fact that the author does not care about the air-based TKR. And of course, it was imperative to indicate the indispensable fear of American submariners before it. It’s a pity they didn’t write that they are massively writing letters of resignation from the fleet ...
  7. +2
    6 August 2015 09: 31
    Quote: Mera Joota
    It’s a pity they didn’t write that they are massively writing letters of resignation from the fleet ...

    You will be surprised - but massively write. The largest mass with Virginia. There are not even enough boat commanders for all boats.
    1. +1
      6 August 2015 10: 17
      Quote: Denis_469
      You will be surprised - but massively write.

      maybe also "khibiny" (underwater) feel lol
      1. 0
        6 August 2015 10: 25
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        maybe also "khibiny" (underwater)

        I can’t say this, because I do not know.
      2. 0
        6 August 2015 14: 58
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        maybe also "khibiny" (underwater)

        Duc "Khibiny" is now a well-known bogey against USA NAVY and is clearly indicated by the sailors in the dismissal report ...
  8. +6
    6 August 2015 10: 45
    The background to the creation of Project 885 goes back to 70: before the Americans had nuclear submarines with ICBMs on board, their boats with missiles had to be on duty quite close to our territorial waters, because the Fleet concept was developed to counteract this, which implied the creation of long-range acoustic watch boats of the Afalin project with a powerful hull Irtysh-Amphora and small submarine fighters (approximately 705), aimed at the target of these boats. Then, this concept with the advent of ICBM boats disappeared by itself, but the project continued. In particular, the 971 nuclear submarines became the simplified Afalina project, which later became an independent project. And project 885 was created as a fourth-generation multifunctional boat capable of combining all the tasks of the nuclear submarines of projects 4 and 971. The main ideas were received from Afalin, in particular, layout solutions and the Irtysh hull with the Amphora spherical antenna and the lateral arrangement of torpedo tubes because of this.
    Photo layout Afalina:
    1. 0
      6 August 2015 10: 58
      Looks nice
    2. 0
      6 August 2015 11: 09
      Quote: Engineer
      And Project 885 was created as a 4th generation multifunctional boat capable of combining all the tasks of the nuclear submarines of Projects 971 and 949.

      As a result, it turned out to be unable to replace either 971 or 949. Since its torpedo ammunition is 2/3 of the ammunition load of 971, and anti-ship missiles are 3 times weaker than those used by 949, and our missile boats originally had a concept of 1 missile - 1 target. True, in practice it turned out differently. The warheads of the missiles turned out to be weaker than the calculated ones during combat use from one of our submarines. It was once attacked by an English anti-submarine group off Gibraltar. They bombed a little with depth charges, but the boat escaped pursuit. On the way back north, the boat again crossed with that British anti-submarine group and attacked itself. So, even "Granite" is unlikely to fulfill the methodology 1 missile - 1 target. And for "Onyx" this is not a feasible task at all.
      1. +2
        6 August 2015 11: 44
        Quote: Denis_469
        And for "Onyx" this is not a feasible task at all.

        Are you a pessimist, or an informed optimist? what
        1. +2
          6 August 2015 11: 45
          Quote: Andrey Yurievich
          Are you a pessimist, or an informed optimist?

          I'm realist. Although I do not exclude the successful hit of a rocket in any cellar and its detonation.
      2. 0
        6 August 2015 14: 22
        So, even "Granite" is unlikely to fulfill the methodology 1 missile - 1 target. And for "Onyx" this is not a feasible task at all.
        For such a bold statement, you need to know the performance characteristics of the complexes ... Do you know the performance characteristics of Onyx?
        1. 0
          6 August 2015 14: 28
          Quote: Tektor
          Do you know the performance characteristics of Onyx?

          I know. And I also know the weight of warhead missiles.
          1. 0
            6 August 2015 15: 38
            And where does the weight of the warhead? ... RCC should not be shot down before hitting the target - this is what makes this or that RCC, in fact, a suitable weapon. Agree that to shoot down 7 tons of low-mobility missile is much easier than 3,5 tons. Once again: RCC only if RCC, if it reaches the target. Therefore, the most promising are the X-31AD / PD, as they can maneuver with large overloads. Any RCC that reaches the target causes damage to it, which can be fatal. RCC X-31AD can indicate a point on the target’s body, where it should go. But in such a small RCC, it’s hard to put a good EW station. Therefore, Onyxes are by far the most advanced weapons in terms of anti-ship missiles.
            1. -1
              6 August 2015 15: 58
              Quote: Tektor
              And where does the weight of the warhead?

              With that. Take an interest in the combat use of weapons - then you will find out.

              Quote: Tektor
              RCC should not be shot down before hitting the target - this is what makes a particular RCC, in fact, a suitable weapon. Agree that to shoot down 7 tons of low-mobility missile is much easier than 3,5 tons.

              I do not agree. Because the 7 tonne has its own electronic warfare station, reservation, a more developed control system. At 3,5 tons of it all does not.

              Quote: Tektor
              Once again: RCC only if RCC, if it reaches the target.

              In combat conditions, the anti-ship missile reaches its targets always. Exactly. In all cases of combat use of anti-ship missiles from submarines, missiles reached their targets. Because it’s on the teachings you know when and where it will fly from. In real conditions, all this is not. A rocket can appear anytime, anywhere. And constantly it’s impossible to keep the crews of ships in military base No. 24 7/1 - people will get tired and fall asleep at military posts. And then, when the missiles appear, the crew will sleep and have reduced combat readiness.

              Quote: Tektor
              Any RCC that reaches the target causes damage to it, which can be fatal.

              It may not be. It all depends on where you go. And who gets into.
              1. 0
                6 August 2015 16: 16
                Quote: Denis_469
                In combat conditions, anti-ship missiles always reach their targets. Exactly. In all cases of combat use of anti-ship missiles from submarines, missiles reached their targets.

                Demolished! What about marriage? If a fight? In which cases? Anglo-Argentine conflict? I think that same old cannon cruiser?
                1. 0
                  6 August 2015 16: 29
                  Quote: Novel 11
                  Demolished!

                  This happens when knowledge is considered evil. And history is pseudoscience.

                  Quote: Novel 11
                  What about marriage?

                  Marriage is marriage. When a rocket is defective, then its performance characteristics are indifferent.

                  Quote: Novel 11
                  If a fight? In which cases? Anglo-Argentine conflict? I think that same old cannon cruiser?

                  And what - besides that attack, the boats did not fight anymore? We fought. And more. Both before and after.
                  1. 0
                    6 August 2015 16: 55
                    Quote: Denis_469
                    This happens when knowledge is considered evil.

                    So I ask, to us mortals the gate to state secrets is closed ...... Therefore, if somewhere, suddenly, something is something, then at least approximately, and not at the very top 10. More questions, if possible: Participated in Onyx trials? Whether I came into contact with production - I do not ask, because confidently earlier answered about her weight ...... although this is not a complete argument. So you are connected with providing its carriers, or the officer is obliged to remain silent on duty. No offence. P.S. And about knowledge is not necessary, it is not accessible to everyone.
                    Quote: Denis_469
                    And what - besides that attack, the boats did not fight anymore? We fought. And more. Both before and after.

                    The desert storm is a little different, the level of air defense did not correspond there, Yugoslavia also. I can’t remember the sea battles. That cruiser is out of place, due to air defense again. Mentioned as a combat use - no more, consider a clear exaggeration to be a worthy opponent.
                    1. 0
                      6 August 2015 17: 23
                      Quote: Novel 11
                      so here I ask, to us mortals the gate to state secrets is closed ......

                      It is closed when there is nothing in the head. And if in your head there is even a couple of convolutions, then everything can be found on the Internet. This summer we tested a new PLUR. In the Barents Sea. And I showed my father a photo of that new PLUR the day before her tests. There is everything on the Internet. Even that which is not.

                      Quote: Novel 11
                      More questions, if possible: Participated in Onyx trials?

                      No, I did not participate.

                      Quote: Novel 11
                      So you are connected with providing its carriers, or the officer is obliged to remain silent on duty.

                      No, I'm not a soldier and I’m not under any subscription. Generally under no. Therefore, nothing owes to anyone. And if someone believes that I owe him, then I can forgive him what I owe him :)
              2. 0
                6 August 2015 17: 56
                On the PL 949 of the project, 24 Granites were placed, but 72 RCCs (approximately 40 Onyxes and 32 Caliber) can be placed in the same volume. Doesn't that matter to you?
                1. +1
                  6 August 2015 18: 11
                  Quote: Tektor
                  On the PL 949 of the project, 24 Granites were placed, but 72 RCCs (approximately 40 Onyxes and 32 Caliber) can be placed in the same volume. Doesn't that matter to you?

                  There are two ways:
                  on the one hand, an increase in ammunition is always good. Allows you to attack more targets.
                  weaker rockets, on the other hand, can do less damage to targets. And therefore, they will need more to sink goals.

                  With rockets, this has not yet become clear to everyone, therefore I will illustrate with an example from torpedoes.
                  In the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, the caliber of torpedoes in the submarines of our fleet was 381 mm. Then began an increase in the size of targets (transports and warships), after which it became clear that the 381 mm is no longer enough. And by World War 1, the main caliber was 450 mm. During World War I, it became clear that 1 mm torpedoes were too weak to quickly sink targets. Therefore, in the Second World War, our submarines entered with torpedoes of 450 mm caliber. According to the results of the Second World War, it became clear that the power of the 533-mm torpedoes was already insufficient for the sinking of targets that were increasing in size. Because at one point in the submarines appeared 533 mm torpedoes.
                  And your question is akin to the question: instead of 24 650 mm torpedoes, we will install 40 533 mm and 32 450 mm torpedoes. Will it be better or worse?
                  So if the power of the Onyx and Caliber is enough for the purposes, then it is better. if not enough, then worse.
          2. 0
            6 August 2015 15: 50
            Quote: Denis_469
            I know. And I also know the weight of warhead missiles.

            Also, one comrade recently asked a question about Granite, got a resolution of the Council of Ministers, and the characteristics of the weapon, if something should correspond to it, but he also related to its production ....... And how to determine the range? On these litmus papers of decisions from the Council of Ministers ?? Duck hundreds of them slap in the KGB, and will not consult with the Council of Ministers. People are so interesting, they swear, get baptized, they say he himself was, participated, did, etc., then it turns out that he was mistaken. I can’t believe it somehow.
  9. +1
    6 August 2015 11: 46
    Thanks for the informative article. Glory to the designers who survived those destructive liberal-sale years and did not give up, and now have created universal submarines of the highest class, far superior to the American, French
  10. 0
    6 August 2015 15: 28
    Quote: Evgeniy667b
    Better less chatter. and more submarines !!!

    I asked Yasenya: "Where is your favorite?" ... "On the way" - he answered me ... Hm ... Hm ... OK Google "911"
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. 0
    8 August 2015 08: 43
    Hmm. Except maybe ballistic missile strikes ... One of the modifications of one of the promising missiles has a range of up to 5,5 thousand kilometers and is equipped with special ammunition. What is not a strategist? The level of the late 60s - 70s. But it turns out that she will be able to get an enemy warrant for many thousands of kilometers! Or deep into the territory on some super important enemy object to sandal ...
  13. 0
    11 August 2015 12: 15
    There are a lot of comments about the price and number of boats of this project, BUT, people, a thread will explain to me how survivable this ship is with such a hull?