Military Review

About "Panther" and strategic eggs in one basket

50
First about the good. As it turned out recently, the gondola of the device for setting and retrieving a flexible extended towed hydroacoustic complex antenna (UPV GPBA GAK) on the recently published Tigra photo portrait (ref. 1), still belongs to Panther. In another photo from b345 (forums.airbase.ru), taken in the same place at the same hour, this is clearly visible. The hydrodynamically perfect shape of the PLAC Project 971 by inexperience can only be confused with the 671RTMK, but the elongated ("limousine") fencing leaves no doubt that we have before us the only naval "Pike-B" of the Russian Navy and one of two or three combat-ready cruising nuclear submarines of the Red Banner Northern fleet.



"Panther" in the company of five SSBNs (the fifth is almost not visible), Gadzhievo, 01.01-08.08.2015 (photo from b345 from forums.airbase.ru)


Now about the sad. Being in the base of five SSBNs is also suggestive. Assuming that one of the seven strategists of the Federation Council is still on combat patrol ("Tula" is under repair at Zvezdochka "), the KOH of our northern group of NSNF is only 0,14 (instead of the desired 0,33 or close to the ideal 0,5). On the one hand, this may not seem so important: when launching an SLBM of the R-29RMU2 “Sineva” 11500 km (link 2), to Washington - “only” 6740 km, and to San Francisco - 7950 km, while that all its ammunition BDRM able to release the "queue" for 3,5 min. (14 seconds between launches, as during the legendary operation "Behemoth-2" in 1991. - link 3). That is, if a nuclear strike is delivered from the US territory to the Russian Federation, the 15-20 flight minutes of the American ICBMs (with v = 7 km / s) of the 31-th division in combat duty will be enough to shoot at answer.

On the other hand, one of the potential enemy SSBNs can patrol somewhere in the Danish Strait, 2300 km from Gadzhiyevo - at the minimum launch distance of the Trident-2 (*) (5,5 min. Flight of the SLBM). In this case, the 50% of the naval component of the nuclear triad of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will be destroyed by a single warhead purely preventively (two short minutes is hardly enough to make a fateful decision about a nuclear response). For complacency, you can, of course, look for excuses in the absence of a threatened period (by relying on the SVR) and in readiness to quickly go to sea if something happens (taking into account the average repairs and VTGs completed and staffing on a contract basis). However, it will be much better to think about raising KOH and at least some dispersal - instead of crowding in one OPB, almost tied to the board to the board (almost like in Pearl Harbor). Relaxation is a treacherous lady, abuse of her by anyone and never lead to good. ■

(*) The minimum launch range was kindly suggested by ak_12.



"Karelia" and "Ekaterinburg", Gadzhievo, 01.01-08.08.2015 (photo from b345 from forums.airbase.ru)



"Yuri Dolgorukiy", Gadzhievo, 01.01-08.08.2015 (photo from b345 from forums.airbase.ru)



Novomoskovsk and Verkhoturye, Gadzhievo, 01.01-08.08.2015 (photo from b345 from forums.airbase.ru)

Originator:
http://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/107377.html
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Gamdlislyam
    Gamdlislyam 29 August 2015 06: 27 New
    +1
    The article has a clear goal of launching a “lice of doubt” into the country's defense capabilities and the competence of the Navy leadership (and the Commander-in-Chief with the leadership of the Defense Ministry). The arguments (if it can be called arguments) are designed for the ignorance of readers, for their incompetence. Psychologically loyal course of the fifth column - to sow doubt.
    Opus put a minus.
    1. Tanais
      Tanais 29 August 2015 08: 18 New
      0
      Quote: Gamdlislyam
      The article has a clear goal of launching a “lice of doubt” into the country's defense capabilities and the competence of the Navy leadership (and the Commander-in-Chief with the leadership of the Defense Ministry). The arguments (if it can be called arguments) are designed for the ignorance of readers, for their incompetence. Psychologically loyal course of the fifth column - to sow doubt.
      Opus put a minus.


      The funny thing is that AUTHORITY is not traced ... "LJ", "Alexander Shishkin's blog" and all ...

      Is this Shishkin the author, is it a repost ... It's not clear request

      No links, no signatures ...
      1. veksha50
        veksha50 29 August 2015 10: 05 New
        +28
        Quote: Tanais
        No links, no signatures ...



        Yes, it's not about the links ... In the photo 5 (!!!) the nuclear submarines standing at the quays ...

        The very essence of missile nuclear submarines as an integral part of the nuclear triad is their invisibility, their proximity to the enemy’s shores ...

        In this case, they stand - like in a parade ... 5 nuclear submarines X 16 missiles = 80 missiles ... This is an almost full-fledged OS missile division from Voivod (Satan) ... And all this is in sight, without the ability to quickly hide, leave ...

        Here the whole point is: the construction of individual berths, etc. there’s no money, and it’s not necessary to inflate the infrastructure ... But the fact that there should be a constant rotation - some of the boats are on the database, some are returned, moved to the position area for a shift, and some are on vacation and scheduled maintenance ... That is, in the same Gadzhievo for good, more than two boats in the base should not be at the same time !!!

        PS Just do not need to say that missiles can be launched from the parking lot at the pier ... The conversation is not about that ...
        1. Mikhail Zubarev
          Mikhail Zubarev 29 August 2015 10: 39 New
          +1
          Firstly, it is not clear when the photo was taken. She may be at least 10 years old. And gentlemen, experts, give your conclusion that this is the third submarine, is it really a strategist?
          1. kote119
            kote119 29 August 2015 12: 36 New
            +3
            the third in a row 971pr - multi-purpose
          2. imperialist
            imperialist 29 August 2015 12: 58 New
            +4
            Do you see the Northwind? How can a photo be 10 years old?
          3. altman
            altman 29 August 2015 17: 07 New
            +2
            And in August in Gadzhievo snow lies?
            1. Rubs
              Rubs 30 August 2015 00: 32 New
              +1
              There were snowfalls in June. In August there is no snow.
              1. tolian
                tolian 30 August 2015 13: 42 New
                0
                In the year 66, in mid-August, a snowstorm caused snowstorm at the airport near Murmansk (flew to Havana).
            2. Andrey NM
              Andrey NM 30 August 2015 11: 32 New
              +1
              In August there was practically no snow, sometimes pieces remained in the lowlands, but very rarely. Previously, the base was dispersed. The 13th division often stuck in the Reindeer Gub, the rest in the Gadzhievo. By the way, they began to develop Gremikha as a base point even in tsarist times, there was nothing to do about it, everything went on. Even then they were thinking about the development of bases and the cover of shipping. Holes in the rocks of the Balaclava type and in the North poked around, and for large ships. They probably didn’t dig ... BDRMs were used quite intensively in the late 80s, in a year the ship made two autonomous units, sometimes more.
          4. sub307
            sub307 30 August 2015 21: 42 New
            0
            Judging by the amount of snow in the hills, the photos were taken at about the same time, most likely the month of May is the beginning of June.
        2. Rubs
          Rubs 30 August 2015 00: 30 New
          +1
          In the 80s he served there. It looks like on that pier where the multi-purpose man in the photo.
          Then the piers were not empty either. More than five boats rested.
          However, in my amateurish opinion, they had enough trouble. Hand over - take the boat. And prepare for the campaign, and stock up. Again, the teachings are different. Well this is not a taxi. Gas ticket and shift shift. Broke, I’ll call.

          And the layout is well-known: everyone in the database will burn. God forbid to push another boat into the sea.

          And if you stupidly estimate. Half the boats at sea, the other at the base. What is bad?
    2. AUL
      AUL 29 August 2015 08: 29 New
      +3
      And you could not reasonedly to refute the facts that are given in the article? It would be interesting to get acquainted with your calculations.
    3. veksha50
      veksha50 29 August 2015 09: 53 New
      +10
      Quote: Gamdlislyam
      The arguments (if it can be called arguments) are designed for the ignorance of readers, for their incompetence. Psychologically loyal course of the fifth column - to sow doubt.



      Well, first of all, the five-column enemy TAK will not write ... A man is writing who is a fan of the safety of the marine part of our nuclear triad ...

      And to confirm this version (the need for egg dispersal) I can give an example: the missile division of the OS consisted of 10 regiments (with mine launchers), so the "shoulders" between the position areas of these regiments reached 240 km ... That is, not only were the missiles in protected silos, they were also quite far from each other ...

      Well, we won’t talk about cover ... in Soviet times, the forces and means to protect the positional area were stored under a bar with two zeros ...

      So the point is not the authorship, but the fact that there really is a reason to think ... higher ...
    4. Nosgoth
      Nosgoth 29 August 2015 10: 15 New
      +9
      That is, "if I don’t like something" (violates my complacency) - you need to immediately scatter the labels "he is from the fifth column, these are traitors," liberties?

      The more often they are scattered with such words (accusations), the less valuable they are. And more and more often, having heard - “yes, this is the fifth column to blame”, you understand that a person (no matter who) just raves about another persecution mania, and you don’t take his words seriously. Here is the result of your "verbiage".

      What kind of kindergarten?
      1. veksha50
        veksha50 29 August 2015 13: 44 New
        0
        Quote: Nosgoth
        That is, "if I don’t like something" (violates my complacency) - you need to immediately scatter the labels "he is from the fifth column, these are traitors," liberties?



        Sergey, if THIS your post is addressed to ME, then I already told you: CAREFULLY read the text, thoughtfully, and not hysteria ...

        I just said that this review was NOT written by a five-column ... And in general, talking about fifth or tenth columns at the moment is a bunch in a puddle ...

        And if you are already trying to answer someone - then do it targetedly ...
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. Grandson of Veteran
      Grandson of Veteran 6 September 2015 04: 50 New
      0
      friends, my case is not typical at the age of 37. I decided that I want to serve in the submarine fleet. Rather, I decided it before. but the family perceived the moron. I want everything, cook, by anyone ..... This is mine .... I decided earlier, at 25 years old. Dad served at the Black Sea Fleet.
      1. Grandson of Veteran
        Grandson of Veteran 6 September 2015 05: 04 New
        0
        Well, they drove, the seaman))) I will ride tourists along the coast, and next time you will see the sea in the picture)) Thank you all)) Your Mom) Greetings)
  2. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 29 August 2015 07: 44 New
    +4
    Well, let’s say so Gadzhievo is not just a place for boats to “dock”, it’s a strategic naval base and there are a lot of things in the hills ... there are also means against ballistic missiles. But, here is how many missiles of the probable enemy they are designed to be a secret.
    1. veksha50
      veksha50 29 August 2015 10: 07 New
      0
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      But, here is how many missiles of the probable enemy they are designed to be a secret.



      In Soviet times, all this (Navy) was thoroughly protected ... But now ... And, again, you are right - this is a secret ...

      But I don’t think that such a base is even heavily defended, even after what we had done to the army-navy-air defense in previous dashing times ...
    2. Nosgoth
      Nosgoth 29 August 2015 10: 23 New
      0
      Does that mean "everything is in order," sleep on?
      1. veksha50
        veksha50 29 August 2015 13: 12 New
        +2
        Quote: Nosgoth
        Does that mean "everything is in order," sleep on?



        You not only read this, but also read my other posts ??? Or do you have an instant reaction to this momentary situation - who said something against your information ???

        Who said everything is all right ??? And who said - that EVERYTHING is out of order ???

        Do you have in your hands the plan of protection and defense of the naval base of the Gadzhievo ??? Top secret, by the way ... On which EVERYTHING that covers this base is painted, and in the explanatory note questions about interaction with the covering forces, ranging from infantry and ending with VKS means, are worked out ???
        And you see from him that Gadzhiev is not covered ???

        Yes, the fact that 5 submarines at the same time at the pier is not comme il faut ...
        But it’s not necessary to link this fact with the issue of covering the base ... These are somewhat different things ...
  3. staryivoin
    staryivoin 29 August 2015 07: 45 New
    +2
    I do not know whether it is a stuffing or not a stuffing. But the SSBN base is not a collective farm market where anyone can tumble. Well, for the air cover of the base, there is probably also something more reliable besides slingshots. About eggs in one basket, too, perhaps not a fact, but who they show more firmly in time. Only one agrees to relax is not worth it.
    1. Nosgoth
      Nosgoth 29 August 2015 10: 24 New
      -2
      Those. Are you claiming this is a photo montage?
  4. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 29 August 2015 08: 13 New
    +4
    Firstly, with modern means of communication, the speed of the media and other “bells and whistles” of the modern world, a possible war will become known not now, but long before. Therefore, being on the naval base at the moment does not bother all nuclear submarines. Even with a very rapid deterioration in relations with a potential enemy, there will be enough time to put the weapons in combat readiness and, if necessary, take the actions necessary to prevent possible damage, it can also be a change of location.
    Secondly, it would be time to limit the access of various “analysts” to the “strategists” bases so that ordinary people, who should be confident in their defenders, would not confuse their “concerns”! wink
    hi
    1. imperialist
      imperialist 29 August 2015 13: 37 New
      0
      In a threatened period, they will all the more be impossible to withdraw from the base. This is the sure death of the boats. Under the “cap” will be teeming with “Los Angeles” and “Virginia”, and we have only four combat-ready multipurpose nuclear submarines of which two are boats of project 671RTMK. And in peacetime, sending a strategist to a BS without cover is not good.
  5. andrei.yandex
    andrei.yandex 29 August 2015 08: 16 New
    +1
    The first photo speaks for itself if it is an installation. It’s worth considering.
  6. sevtrash
    sevtrash 29 August 2015 08: 52 New
    +5
    A strange reaction from some - like "keep quiet and silent." And why then this site, if not for discussion and talk? The likely adversary has much more complete information, most likely the nuclear submarine base under the constant control of satellites, drones, installed sensors, and residency.
    As for KOH, it is difficult to expect anything else. Look at Google how at least the nuclear submarine bases of Americans, Europeans and the same Gadzhievo look.
  7. rudolff
    rudolff 29 August 2015 11: 27 New
    +7
    The author is right, but this is the secret of the General and he does not discover America. The fact that we have KOH below the plinth, I mentioned several times on this site, for which I scooped up the cons for being unpatriotic.
    Even in the best times of the Soviet period, the Operational Stress Factor of our nuclear submarines never exceeded 0,5, and among the Americans, the similar Operational Tempo never dropped below 0,5 (50%), sometimes reaching 0,7 (70%). Now we have KOH 0,1-0,15. In other words, at one time on a BS in the sea, at best, we have one or two SSBNs from both fleets, sometimes not a single one. Exits to the areas of BP for the completion of the objectives of the course do not count. With such effectiveness in the use of armaments, deploying ICBMs (SLBMs) ​​on a nuclear submarine loses all meaning. Statements like, Sinev and from the pier will get - from the evil one. The SSBN at the “wall” is easy prey and no air defense of the naval base can protect it from a massive preventive strike. If you do not use ships for their intended purpose at sea, then why are they needed?
    1. veksha50
      veksha50 29 August 2015 15: 55 New
      +2
      Quote: rudolff
      With such efficiency in the use of armaments, deploying ICBMs (SLBMs) ​​on a nuclear submarine loses all meaning. Statements like, Sinev and from the pier will get - from the evil one.



      Vooot ... But this is the essence ...

      It turns out - the costs of construction and operation are huge, incommensurable with the costs of creating mine or mobile soil complexes ...

      The whole essence of the marine part of the nuclear triad lies in its inconspicuous location near the enemy territory (objects) ...

      But to get the enemy ... there are a lot of ways and means, but to carry out combat duty unseemly and present a sudden surprise, like a devil from a snuff box - this is their main task ...
      1. Rubs
        Rubs 30 August 2015 00: 52 New
        -2
        And why be nearby with a range of missiles of ten thousand kilometers?
  8. Vadim237
    Vadim237 29 August 2015 12: 19 New
    -2
    We have few submarines with ICBMs.
    1. imperialist
      imperialist 29 August 2015 13: 27 New
      +1
      We have enough submarines with ICBMs. But the fact that they stick out in the bases is another matter. There is practically no multipurpose component, the tasks of which include covering strategists in areas of BS bearing.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 29 August 2015 14: 30 New
        -1
        Looks like our Ministry of Defense saves on nuclear submarine patrols - one hell, they will launch missiles when an enemy missile attack is detected.
  9. cost75
    cost75 29 August 2015 12: 32 New
    0
    Everything is calm in Baghdad, the president intends to visit friendly USA
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 30 August 2015 00: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: cost75
      Everything is calm in Baghdad, the president intends to visit friendly USA

      Why - take an interest .. with what composition of the delegation. Then, if you want, you can write all kinds of nonsense ..
  10. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 29 August 2015 14: 46 New
    +1
    Five strategic cruisers in one place! We have that there are not enough basing points, no infrastructure? One would like to ask the question: “Where is the money Zin!”, But meanwhile the theft of state funds from the side of “effective managers” is flourishing and everyone knows about it, then “where is the landing”? Have you made a noise with the “sweet couple”, and with the Vostochny spaceport, “and things are still there!” Is it out of order, or do you want to feel the morning of June 22, 41 again?
  11. lelikas
    lelikas 29 August 2015 15: 08 New
    +3
    Quote: polkovnik manuch
    Five strategic cruisers in one place! We have that there are not enough basing points, no infrastructure? One would like to ask the question: “Where is the money Zin!”, But meanwhile the theft of state funds from the side of “effective managers” is flourishing and everyone knows about it, then “where is the landing”? Have you made a noise with the “sweet couple”, and with the Vostochny spaceport, “and things are still there!” Is it out of order, or do you want to feel the morning of June 22, 41 again?

    Aha - to each cruiser base how to build in Balaclava? Even with the union, it was hard to drag such a bunch of bases, and now even more so. Just in case, this is not just a pier near the shore ....
    The Yankees collecting ships in the bases also remember Pearl Harbor - but they continue - are they dumb?
    We cannot all drive out to sea - we have one ship from the fleet right now - which is not hidden and the photo is sobsno confirmed.
    What kind of shock will befall the author if he finds out that most of the “newest” T-90s are in storage, and their brothers in parts are crowded in hangars, and not worn incessantly across fields and vast spaces.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 29 August 2015 18: 00 New
      +2
      No need to mix flies and cutlets, talking about KON SSBNs, because the boat being on combat duty ensures the stability of the MSNS. You don’t use the entire fleet in the first 20 minutes of the conflict, unlike SSBNs.
      Of course it's hard. By 1982, the NSLF included 86 RPLs of nine projects armed with seven types of SLBMs (in the USA, 41 SSBNs of 5 different projects armed with 4 types of SLBMs). In fact, the USSR Nuclear Forces were created three times: for the first time from the late 50s to 1967, 37 RPLs with first-generation missiles (R-11FM, R-13, R-21) were built, then from 1967 to 1972 34 RPLs with second-generation missiles (R-21), from 1972 SSBNs came with R-29 SLBMs. However, the modernization of previously built ships for the new missile system was not carried out and the boats simply “stocked” on the fleet. Where is the money to provide basing here?
  12. Wadikcat
    Wadikcat 29 August 2015 20: 50 New
    +3
    I venture to comment amateurishly. Nevertheless, we see not a timetable for access to the SSBN, but a one-shot photo. Secondly, I will assume that the mentioned schedule most likely has a different look, based on the tension of the global political situation. Moreover, this situation is determined not by the tone of the news, but by the materials of the relevant mining services. In the end, in August, Navy Day is celebrated, a bunch of arms tests are carried out, exercises are provided, including international ones, and there are a million more reasons that led to the instantaneous finding on the basis of several ships under consideration. It seems to me that there is simply a certain speculation on the part of the author of the article.
  13. serverny
    serverny 29 August 2015 22: 39 New
    +1
    "That's stupid ..." ©
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 29 August 2015 22: 55 New
      -1
      Ahem ... do you understand the difference between SSBNs and an aircraft carrier?
  14. Sergey333
    Sergey333 30 August 2015 09: 52 New
    +1
    A good target, I did not know that all aircraft carriers were in their one place.
  15. Russian Patriot
    Russian Patriot 30 August 2015 10: 42 New
    0
    I apologize, but it is possible to write abbreviations (KON, MSYAS, PLAK) with decryption.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 30 August 2015 15: 14 New
      0
      SNF-Navy nuclear deterrence forces.
      SSBN-nuclear submarine with ballistic missiles, in Russia there is the designation of the SSBN (RPSN) - missile submarine strategic cruiser (boat).
      The operational voltage coefficient (Eng. Operational Tempo), abbreviated as KOH or the coefficient of operational use of forces is one of the most important parameters characterizing the operational efficiency of the weapons complex and showing the possibility of using the complex for combat use. As a rule, in relation to warships and submarines. It is calculated for the selected period as the ratio of the time that the ship (or several ships) was in the areas of combat mission to the total duration of the period, including the time spent at sea and the time spent at basing points [1]. For example, if KLB = 0,5 for a certain year is indicated for SSBNs, then this means that during this year 50% of the time the boat was at sea.

      In practice, the Navy of the USSR and Russia, the operational voltage coefficient is dimensionless and varies from 0 to 1,0. In the US Navy, the analogue of KOH is English. Operational Tempo - expressed as a percentage, varies from 0 to 100%.
  16. Zomanus
    Zomanus 30 August 2015 11: 19 New
    0
    The photos are beautiful. It is clear that looking at these hills will get tired in the second year of service, but for the first time beauty. Well, what about the article ... I don’t think that tomorrow they’ll missiles at this base. Because this is usually preceded by a significant seething of shit, after which there are actions.
  17. Ivan Ivanych
    Ivan Ivanych 30 August 2015 12: 15 New
    0
    It is embarrassing that you can easily walk around and take a picture of a secret base with strategists, upload it to the network. Somehow it's not right.
  18. Megatron
    Megatron 30 August 2015 12: 19 New
    -2
    And what, the base is not covered by any means of air defense, in principle, that the author so boldly claims to destroy it with one single charge ??
    1. ava09
      ava09 30 August 2015 20: 02 New
      0
      Do you seriously think that a “single charge” is aimed at a strategic object of such importance? Moreover, this is practically the entire composition of the nuclear forces of the Northern Fleet. And the remaining small number of SSBN bases remaining after the assassination of the USSR are given less attention than Moscow?
  19. ava09
    ava09 30 August 2015 19: 55 New
    0
    Quote: Gamdlislyam
    The article has a clear goal of launching a “lice of doubt” into the country's defense capabilities and the competence of the Navy leadership (and the Commander-in-Chief with the leadership of the Ministry of Defense). I set a negative point.


    If I understand you correctly, your personal experience does not allow to doubt the impeccability of power in general? Do you know that from "die-hard patriots" there can be no less harm than from alarmists? This I inform you without trying to evaluate the value of the article.
  20. doktor_alex
    doktor_alex 1 September 2015 20: 44 New
    0
    Gentlemen, I think that they have already written here, but all the comments are too lazy to read, and so pop the boat concentrating in one place. It's not that simple, a modern warship is not a cauldron for you, where you threw a stone on a rope there and stood in the parking lot. No, any ship, including an underwater one, must not only be tied with mooring lines to the pier, but also provided with a mass of various energy media, such as various electricity (!!!), steam for heating and equipment, water, air. And even in the Soviet Union, where the military was no richer example, there were big problems with all this, the parameters of the media supplied from the shore were not satisfactory, and in order to provide the boat, the crews often drove the ship's equipment spending its precious resource, and this despite the fact that the boats like Now they were in the databases, not one or two at a time, and the author here offers to lay eggs in different baskets. Where does the money come from for a boat to build its own berth with a thermal power station, compressor station and God knows what? In short, if we scatter all the boats separately when they are in the bases, then either we will have boats for 2 years before the average repair and will go to Sevsk once a year, or the country will tear at each halt to build a power plant.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 1 September 2015 21: 08 New
      0
      For some reason, the USN can (and could, from the 60th KOH of the American SSBNs was 0,5-, 06). By 1956, the Office of Special Projects developed the technical characteristics for the strategic nuclear forces, SSBNs and SLBMs. In addition to creating 41 SSBNs, the project provided for the creation of an adequate infrastructure basing, MTO and maintenance, as well as a combat cycling system for the operation of SSBNs. From 1960 to 1965, 5 floating depots were added to the fleet, at the rate of 1 PB for each SSB, and 5 undergoing factory repair (modernization). the squadron introduced supply transports, floating warehouses, tugboats, boats.
      By 1982, we had 86 RPLs of 9 different projects with missiles of 7 different types, where can we get the money, with more than twice as many numbers?
      Maybe instead of one Borea (Yuri Dolgoruky-713 million dollars or 23 billion rubles), it was worthwhile to carry out work similar to the development of USP half a century ago?