Military Review

Nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles (SSBN) type "Ohio"

118
Ohio-class submarines are currently the only type of strategic missile carrier in the US fleet. Ohio-type ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) were put into operation from 1981 to 1997. A total of 18 submarines were built. According to the design, each of these boats carries on board 24 intercontinental three-stage solid-fuel ballistic missiles Trident, equipped with separate warheads with individual guidance.


10 April 1976 of the shipyard of Electric Boat began the construction of a new nuclear strategic submarine for the US fleet - SSBN 726 OHIO, which became the head in a large series of similar SSBNs that were developed in accordance with the Trident program. Experimental design and research work on the new strategic rocket carrier project was carried out in America from October 26 1972 of the year, and the order to build the head boat of the series was issued on July 25 of the year 1974. Currently, all 18 boats built on this project remain in the US Navy. The 17 boats were named after the US states, and one boat, SSBN-730 Henry M. Jackson, was named after Senator Henry Jackson.

Especially for the basing of new submarines in the United States conducted a modernization of two bases. One on the Pacific coast is Bangor, today it is the Kitsap naval base (formed in 2004 by merging the submarine base Bangor and the naval base Bremerton) in Washington State, the second on the Atlantic coast is the naval base Kings Bay in Georgia. Each of these two bases is designed to service the 10 SSBNs. The necessary equipment was installed at the bases for receiving and unloading ammunition from the boats, for the current repair and maintenance of submarines. All conditions have been created to ensure the rest of the personnel. Training centers for staff training were built at each base. They could train up to 25 thousands of people every year. The special simulators installed in the centers allowed the submarine control processes to be worked out in a variety of conditions, including torpedo and rocket firing.



Atomic submarines of the Ohio type belong to third generation boats. As part of the work on the creation of third-generation submarines in the United States, they were able to achieve maximum unification of their submarine forces, reducing the number of submarine classes to two: strategic submarines and multi-purpose submarines (one boat project in each class). The Ohio-type strategic missile-carriers possessed a single-hull structure traditional for American nuclear submarines, differing from multi-purpose submarines by a rather well-developed superstructure. When creating boats of this generation, close attention was paid to reducing the noise level of submarines and improving their electronic equipment, especially sonar weapons. A feature of the third-generation submarine reactors was that their life could be increased 2 times as compared to the reactors of the boats of the previous generation. Reactors installed on new boats could continuously operate at full power for 9-11 years (with strategists) or 13 years (with multi-purpose submarines). Previous reactors could not operate for more than 6-7 years. And considering the real operating modes, which were much more benign, third-generation submarines could serve without recharging the reactor core for up to 30 years, and in the case of a single recharge - 42-44 of the year.

To estimate the size of Ohio-class strategic missile carriers, it suffices to say that their hull length is 170 meters, it is practically 1,5 football fields. Moreover, these boats are considered one of the most silent in the world. However, they were made unique not by the dimensions and noiselessness, but by the composition of the nuclear weapons - 24 ballistic missiles. Until now, no submarine in the world can boast the presence of such an impressive arsenal (the Russian fourth-generation submarines of the Borey 955 project carry the Bulava P-16 ballistic missiles onboard the 30).

The first Ohio-type 8 submarines were armed with the Trident I C4 ballistic missiles, the subsequent boats received the Trident II D5 missiles. Later, in the course of the planned overhaul of the 4 submarines, the boats of the first series were re-equipped on the Trident II D5 ICBMs, and the 4 boats were also converted into carriers of Tomahawk cruise missiles.



The power plant data SSBN was built on the basis of the eighth generation reactor S8G. In normal operation, two turbines with a capacity of 30 000 l. with. through the gearbox rotated the shaft with the propeller, providing the submarine submersible speed - 20-25 nodes. However, the highlight of the boats of this type was a low-noise mode of operation, when the circulation pumps of the primary circuit of the reactor stopped and it switched to natural circulation. Turbines and gearbox are stopped and separated from the shaft by means of a special coupling. After that, only two turbogenerators with an 4000 kW power each remained, the electric power generated by them, passing through a rectifier converter, was fed to a propeller motor that rotated the shaft. In this mode, the boat has developed a speed sufficient for silent patrols. The same scheme of construction of the power plant is used on the fourth-generation submarines.

Description of the design of the boat type "Ohio"

Ohio-type boats have a mixed-structure hull: the submarine's robust hull has a cylindrical shape with a truncated cone-shaped extremity, it is complemented by streamlined extremities, in which the HAC spherical antenna, ballast tanks and propeller shaft are located. The upper part of the durable hull of the boat was covered with a lightweight, permeable, streamlined superstructure that covers the missile shafts, as well as various auxiliary equipment at the stern and the flexible towed GAS antenna located at the aft end. Due to the relatively small area of ​​the light hull, the submarine is considered single-hull. According to American experts, such a design of SSBNs creates less hydrodynamic noise and allows to achieve the highest possible speed of a low-noise course in comparison with two-hull submarines. The hull of the boat is divided into compartments by flat bulkheads, each compartment is divided into several decks. Loading hatches were provided in the nose, missile and stern compartments. The cabin of the boat is shifted to the bow, horizontal wings of the wing-shaped form are installed on it, in the rear part of the boat are cruciform, vertical face plates are mounted on horizontal rudders.

The solid hull of the submarine was welded from sections (shells) of conical, cylindrical and elliptical shape with a thickness of 75 mm. The material used was high-strength steel HY-80 / 100, having a yield strength of 56-84 kgf / mm. To increase the strength of the hull on the boat was provided for the installation of ring frames, which are spaced along the entire length of the hull. Also, the boat hull received a special anti-corrosion coating.



The basis of the power plant of the boat is a nuclear reactor - a double-circuit pressurized water reactor (PWR) of the S8G type, which was designed by engineers of General Electric. It consists of a standard set of parts for reactors of this type: reactor vessel, active zone, neutron reflector, control and protection rods. The steam-turbine power plant includes two turbines with an 30 power. 000 hp. each gearbox, condenser, circulation pump and steam lines. Both steam turbine units operate on one shaft, while the high speed of rotation of the turbines is reduced to 100 revolutions per minute with the help of a reducer, after which the coupling is transmitted to the propeller shaft, which causes the seven-blade propeller with a diameter of 8 to rotate. Propeller has oblique sickle-shaped blades with reduced rotational speed, which allows to reduce the noise on the speed of patrol. Also on board there are two low-speed multi-pole turbo-generators, each with 4 mW power, they generate electricity with voltage 450В and frequency 60 Hz, which, using an AC-to-DC converter, provides power to the propeller motor (in this mode, steam turbine units do not rotate the propeller).

The main armament of the Ohio-type SSBNs are intercontinental ballistic missiles located in 24 vertical shafts, which are located in two longitudinal rows immediately behind the fence of retractable devices. The ICBM mine is a steel cylinder, which is rigidly fixed in the submarine hull. In order to be able to install the Trident II missiles on board, the missile shaft was initially increased compared to the boats of the previous project, its length is 14,8 meters, diameter is 2,4 meters. On top of the shaft is closed with a lid, equipped with a hydraulic drive, it provides the sealing of the shaft and is designed for the same pressure level as the durable submarine hull. On the lid are 4 control and commissioning hatches, which are designed to conduct scheduled inspections. A special locking mechanism is designed to protect against unauthorized access, and manages the opening of the technological hatches and the cover itself.

The Trident ICBM can be launched at 15-20 seconds intervals from the depth of the dive to 30 meters, at a speed of the boat approximately 5 nodes and waves of the sea to 6 points. All 24 missiles can be fired in one salvo, while test launches of the entire ammunition load of the boat per salvo in the US have never been carried out. In the water, there is an uncontrolled movement of the rocket, after its release to the surface, according to the acceleration sensor, the first-stage engine is activated. In normal mode, the engine is turned on at a height of about 10-30 meters above the sea surface.

Trident II D-5 rocket launch


Trident II D-5 missiles can be equipped with two types of warheads - W88 with a capacity of 475 kt each and W76 with a capacity of 100 kt each. At maximum load, one missile can carry 8 combat units W88 or 14 combat units W76, providing the maximum range of flight - 7360 km. The use of special astrocorrection equipment on rockets together with an increase in the efficiency of the navigation system made it possible to achieve a circular probable deviation for W88 units - 90-120 meters. With the defeat of enemy missile mines, the so-called “2 on 1” method can be used, when two combat units with different missiles are simultaneously aimed at one ICBM mine. In this case, when using W88 units with a power of 475 кт, the probability of hitting the target is 0,95. When using W76 blocks, the probability of hitting a target with the same “2 over 1” method is already 0,84. In order to achieve the maximum range of the flight of ballistic missiles, 8 warheads W76 or 6 warheads W88 are usually installed on their board.

For self-defense, each boat was equipped with 4 TA caliber 533 mm. These torpedo tubes are located in the bow of the submarine slightly at an angle to the median plane. In the ammunition of the boat included 10 torpedoes Mk-48, which can be used against surface ships and submarines of a potential enemy.

As part of the modernization of the submarine program A-RCI (Acoustic Rapid COTS Insertion), all SAC boats of the Ohio type have been upgraded to the AN / BQQ-10 version. Instead of 4-x GAS a common station of the COTS type (commercial-off-the-shelf) was used, which has an open architecture. This solution allows in the future to facilitate the upgrade process of the entire system. The first to upgrade was the Alaska submarine in the autumn of 2000. The new system, among other things, got the opportunity to carry out “hydroacoustic mapping” (Precision Underwater Mapping and Navigation). This allows SSBNs to create a high-resolution hydrographic map and share it with other vessels. The resolution of the equipment installed on board allows you to distinguish even small objects such as mines.



A special station AN / WLR-10 is used to alert the crew about acoustic exposure. Together with it, while the boat is on the surface, the radar warning station AN / WLR-8 (V) 5, operating in the 0,5-18 GHz band, is used. Also, the submarine received 8 launchers Mk2, intended for the production of acoustic noise and the station hydroacoustic counter AN / WLY-1. The main purpose of this station is the automatic detection, classification and subsequent tracking of the attacking torpedoes and a signal for the use of hydroacoustic countermeasures.

During the 2002-2008, the first Ohio-type 4 boats (SSGN 726 Ohio, SSGN 727 Michigan, SSGN 728 Florida, SSGN 729 Georgia) armed with Trident I ICBMs were re-equipped into the PLARC. As a result of the modernization, each of the boats could carry Tomahawk cruise missiles on board up to 154. At the same time 22 from 24 existing mines were upgraded for vertical launch of cruise missiles. Each such mine can be placed on 7 KR "Tomahawk". At the same time, the two mines closest to the wheelhouse were equipped with airlock chambers. These cameras can dock mini-submarines ASDS or DDS modules, designed to exit combat swimmers at a time when the submarine is in a submerged position. These funds can be installed on the boat both together and separately, with a total of no more than two. At the same time, due to their installation, mines with cruise missiles are partially blocked. For example, each ASDS blocks three mines at once, and a shorter DDS module - two. As part of a unit for special operations (seals or marines), the boat can additionally transport up to 66 people, and in the case of a short-term operation, the number of paratroopers on board the boat can be brought to 102 people.

At present, the Ohio-type SSBNs continue to hold the palm in terms of the number of 24 missile silos placed on board and are still considered among the most advanced in their class. According to experts, among the constructed strategic missile carriers, the level of noise in this boat can only be rivaled by French Triumphan type boats. The high accuracy of the Trident II ICBM allows you to hit not only land-based ICBMs, but also the entire range of high-strength targets such as depth-mounted gearboxes and silo launchers, and the large launch range (11 300 km) allows the SSBN Ohio type to carry out combat duty in the Atlantic and Quiet the ocean in the zone of domination of its own naval forces, which provides the boats with a sufficiently high combat stability. The combination of the low cost of maintenance and high efficiency of these submarines armed with Trident II ICBMs has led to the fact that naval strategic forces currently occupy leading positions in the US nuclear triad. The decommissioning of the last Ohio-type boat is scheduled for 2040 year.

Performance characteristics of the Ohio-type SSBNs:
Overall dimensions: length - 170,7 m, width - 12,8 m, draft - 11,1 m.
Displacement - 16 746 t (underwater), 18 750 t (surface).
Submerged speed - 25 nodes.
Surface speed - 17 nodes.
Immersion depth - 365 m (working), 550 m (maximum).
Power plant: nuclear, water and water reactor type GE PWR S8G, two turbines 30 000 hp, two turbo generators 4 mW, diesel generator power 1,4 mW.
Missile armament: 24 ICBM Trident II D-5.
Torpedo armament: 4 TA caliber 533 mm, 10 torpedoes Mk-48.
Crew - 155 man (140 sailors and 15 officers).

Base "Kings Bay" for servicing the SSBNs of the Ohio shooting range assigned to the Atlantic Fleet of the US Navy













Information sources:
http://armyman.info/flot/podvodnye-lodki/18956-podvodnye-lodki-tipa-ogayo.html
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/ohio-ssbn-726
http://korabley.net/news/atomnye_podvodnye_lodki_sravnenie_dvukh_proektov/2012-04-16-1167
https://xpda.com/kingsbay (фото)
Based on materials from open sources.
Author:
118 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Magic archer
    Magic archer 2 February 2016 07: 01
    16
    It’s worth paying tribute to the American designers. Ohio was ahead of the time! In addition to the boats being very quiet and reliable, the embedded ones also made it possible to operate them for more than 30 years with some modernization! It's a shame that our boats built at the same time are almost all decommissioned ... The shark alone remained. Why not modernize them under the Caliber carrier as the Americans did ?! With its size there could have been more than one hundred rockets installed!
    1. Anton Gavrilov
      Anton Gavrilov 2 February 2016 10: 43
      +9
      Why can’t they be modernized under the medium of Caliber like the Americans did ?!


      Because this is far from being such a successful and perfect project as Ohio, and when they are re-equipped in the Kyrgyz Republic, the combat use model will change so that the shortcomings of the 941 project will be tripled.
      1. jjj
        jjj 2 February 2016 13: 25
        0
        Quote: Magic Archer
        . The shark was left alone. Why not modernize them under the Caliber carrier

        And for "Calibers", etc. 636 is fine. And then, boats of the "Ohio" type could, as of 2006 (I have no information now), because of the large draft, only two naval bases could enter
        1. gjv
          gjv 2 February 2016 15: 25
          +2
          Quote: jjj
          submarines of the "Ohio" type could, as of 2006 (now I have no information), because of the high draft, only two naval bases could enter

          Specially for the base of SSBNs, two bases were modernized - one on the Pacific coast (Naval Base Bangor, Washington) and one on the Atlantic (Naval Base Kings Bay, Georgia). Each base is designed to serve 10 boats. The bases are equipped with equipment for receiving and unloading ammunition, maintenance and routine maintenance of SSBNs. All conditions have been created to ensure the relaxation of personnel. At each base there are training centers for staff training. Centers can train up to 25 people annually. Special simulators allow you to practice control of the boat in various conditions, including rocket and torpedo shooting. Training of officers is carried out in the city of Groton.
          Typically, Pacific Rifle combat duty begins and ends at Bangor's Navy.
          During combat duty, a boat can enter the Navy Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) to replenish provisions. Sometimes patrolling ends at Pearl Harbor.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 3 February 2016 00: 03
          +3
          Quote: jjj
          And then, boats of the "Ohio" type could, as of 2006 (I have no information now), because of the high draft, only enter two naval bases

          You can go anywhere, even in Norfolk, which is based on the Atlantic Fleet AVU (depth at pier 14m, fairway - 13,8m. Draft Nuts - 11,1m) But the arsenal of ICBMs, spare parts for SSBNs, Trident training center - only in 2's specialized naval for nuts. yes
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 2 February 2016 13: 34
        +1
        Quote: Anton Gavrilov
        Because this is far from such a successful and perfect project as Ohio,

        Rumor has it that after launching 4 rockets, Ohio sways so much that you have to stop the salvo and wait for the boat to settle down and Project 941 fired all the ammunition from a depth of 55 meters with virtually no problems.
        1. AAV
          AAV 2 February 2016 15: 24
          +2
          As far as I know, a full ammunition volley was fired by a Project 667BDRM boat in 1991. The operation was called "Begemot-2" and was successful.
          And during the "Begemot" in 1984, the launch failed.

          It seems like more than the whole ammunition with nuclear submarines did not shoot
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 2 February 2016 17: 23
            0
            Quote: AAV
            It seems like more than the whole ammunition with nuclear submarines did not shoot

            In 2001 year.
          2. sgg
            sgg 3 February 2016 05: 53
            +1
            It seems like more than the whole ammunition with nuclear submarines did not shoot [/ quote]
            Within the framework of the Kishlak theme, two Project 941 submarines launched the entire ammunition load.
            1. AAV
              AAV 3 February 2016 10: 20
              +1
              Interesting information. I tried to find on the Internet something about such launches, but only the operations "Begemot" and "Begemot-2" are mentioned, can you tell me where you can find something about these launches. Thanks.
          3. netslave
            netslave 3 February 2016 08: 31
            +1
            A complete ammunition was shot from the sharks as part of an expired missile disposal program.
      3. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 4 February 2016 22: 26
        0
        Quote: Anton Gavrilov
        that the shortcomings of the 941st project will make themselves felt triply.

        So what shortcomings will make themselves felt tripled, what in that Ohio was so successful and perfect for re-equipment on the CD, which is not in the "Shark"?
  2. Bongo
    Bongo 2 February 2016 07: 01
    +9
    It’s a pity, of course, that not all the photos are signed, and in fact this picture may have the largest storage of nuclear weapons in the United States.
    1. atalef
      atalef 2 February 2016 07: 10
      19
      The unification of all nuclear submarines into 2 types is a great way to save money, train crews, unify spare parts and design developments for modernization.
      A great example of thinking for years to come, I would say for decades.
      Americans did not pursue a variety of types - they created one, the best in its class, and modernized.
      By the way, look at the photo, the excellent infrastructure of the base.
      In general, a wonderful integrated approach.
      2 base, 2 submarine type.
      Thanks to the author.
      1. Anton Gavrilov
        Anton Gavrilov 2 February 2016 11: 45
        0
        Thank God even though we have now reached a similar one, 955А and 885М are very unified to a very substantial degree. Unfortunately, 885 and 955 are not completely, because the electromechanical part is completely different ships, but nonetheless.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 2 February 2016 12: 24
          +3
          Unification is only partial on-board equipment. Boats even designed different design bureaus.
          1. Anton Gavrilov
            Anton Gavrilov 2 February 2016 12: 47
            0
            Boats even designed different design bureaus.


            YES YOU WHAT !!! ??? Seriously ???

            And then I do not know this as if!

            Far from partial, there is unification so for reference.
            1. spravochnik
              spravochnik 2 February 2016 13: 01
              0
              Sorry, indexes will not pay attention. I hope you're right here.
              1. jjj
                jjj 2 February 2016 13: 28
                +2
                Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                YES YOU WHAT !!! ??? Seriously ???

                And then I do not know this as if!

                When "Malakhit" refused to "Rubin" in the direct transfer of documentation on project 971 for the design of project 955, the transfer took place through the Sevmash design bureau. Many people had to sweat in Severodvinsk then
                1. Anton Gavrilov
                  Anton Gavrilov 2 February 2016 20: 23
                  0
                  The unification and completion of the boat, using the backlogs of other projects, are still different things.

                  Your cap. hi
      2. Saburov
        Saburov 2 February 2016 21: 32
        0
        Quote: atalef
        In general, a wonderful integrated approach.
        2 base, 2 submarine type.


        The result is two goals for guiding missiles, oh how they facilitate the task of quickly destroying depots with nuclear weapons.
        And just two performance characteristics and object records for introduction into sonar systems and sonars, in order to subsequently know how the boat sounds in the ocean.

        The United States, partly because of this, was constantly on duty on our shores, because the different types of our submarines caused them a lot of headache when classifying targets and detecting them.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 3 February 2016 00: 52
          +2
          Quote: Saburov
          only two performance characteristics and object records for introduction into sonar systems and sonars, in order to subsequently know how the boat sounds in the ocean.

          Sorry, somewhat wrong.
          Each submarine has its own g / a portrait. Identification (personalization) is discrete. But recently, due to the increase in accuracy (production culture), discretes appear at large moves (or are completely absent). But at speeds greater than 20, strategists rarely go to peacetime. In war, there is only the post-salvage jerk from the RBP (RBD).
          Therefore, RZK "work" on each outgoing submarine. 971 Ave. also brought intelligence on tracked submarines. The difficulty lay in "fitting" such a portrait to a specific carrier. Undercover data helped. yes
          But that was in the days of ona. And now clairvoyants palm on the map find the boats of the adversary. Oh how! belay
      3. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 3 February 2016 00: 29
        +2
        The US was able to achieve maximum unification of its submarine forces, reducing the number of submarine classes to two: strategic nuclear submarines and multi-purpose nuclear submarines (one boat project in each class).
        The author is mistaken: the Shtatovs have at least three shock (multi-purpose) submarines: Elk, Wolves, and Virginia.

        Quote: atalef
        Unification of all submarines in 2 type

        Hello, namesake! Let me correct you a little.
        Currently, the shtatovites have 3 types of submarines: SSBNs (Nuts), shock (see above) and carriers of anti-ship missiles / KRBDs, in our opinion SSGNs (converted for carriers of KR Nuts). Anyway, they have at least 4 projects of atomos. Therefore, the author is somewhat "inaccurate". yes
      4. Garris199
        Garris199 3 February 2016 01: 12
        0
        Quote: atalef
        In general, a wonderful integrated approach.
        2 base, 2 submarine type.

        Our people would think of this at one time, if you look at some money for other purposes, we would save a lot. But the Americans still could not resist and defeated this tandem Virginia and Sivulf.
    2. KakoVedi
      KakoVedi 2 February 2016 23: 13
      0
      I just wanted to ask the author what kind of branch of Arlington camp is represented in the photo ... Thank you!
  3. glom
    glom 2 February 2016 07: 34
    +6
    "The tactical and technical characteristics of SSBNs of the" Ohio "type:
    .......
    Power plant: nuclear, pressurized water reactor of the GE PWR S8G type, two turbines of 30 hp each, two turbine generators of 000 MW each, a 4 MW diesel generator. "

    However, 4 milliwatts is very small power for a turbogenerator. If the author wanted to write 4 megawatts, then it should be written - 4 MW
  4. Waltasar
    Waltasar 2 February 2016 07: 57
    -1
    And how many calibers can be put in a shark ... I understand that it is expensive and, in general, pointless. Just to save the boat.
    1. atalef
      atalef 2 February 2016 08: 01
      +1
      Quote: Waltasar
      And how many calibers can be put in a shark ... I understand that it is expensive and, in general, pointless. Just to save the boat.

      why save? if expensive and pointless?
      1. Mooh
        Mooh 2 February 2016 16: 42
        -1
        Atalef
        A fleet in being ...
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 2 February 2016 12: 21
      -1
      Count for yourself. There are 6-7 (or even 8) "Calibers" in each mine. Just count how long it will take a volley of all missiles and whether this time will be given. This also applies to the upgraded Ohio. Their use is possible only in areas of complete dominance of the American Navy.
      1. aiw
        aiw 2 February 2016 12: 52
        -1
        And they are used for local conflicts with third countries.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 2 February 2016 13: 19
          0
          According to the Papuans, it is possible to bullet from surface ships, anyway there will not be any serious opposition.
          1. Bayonet
            Bayonet 2 February 2016 21: 43
            +3
            Quote: spravochnik
            According to the Papuans, you can also shoot from surface ships,

            And what bad did the Papuans do to you to shoot rockets at them? crying
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet 2 February 2016 21: 38
      +1
      Quote: Waltasar
      Just to save the boat.

      For salvation, you can put it on joke and turn it into a museum. But this business is not cheap. hi
  5. qwert
    qwert 2 February 2016 08: 08
    +2
    At one time he was in the central hospital KTOF. The officers in the ward argued that in the event of the deployment of our fleet in advance. Those. when the strike is not sudden, but at first there is an aggravation, the transfer of the fleet to increased combat readiness. Here. In this situation, the Ohio submarines managed to launch only 16-18 missiles, after which they were destroyed. It was these simulation results that formed the basis for the fact that we did not start making boats carrying 24 missiles. Although they could. It's cheaper though. "boats for 24 missiles than 3 for 16.
    1. atalef
      atalef 2 February 2016 08: 17
      +9
      Quote: qwert
      . The officers in the chamber claimed that in the case of the deployment of our fleet in advance. Those. when the strike is not sudden, but at first there is an aggravation, the transfer of the fleet to increased combat readiness. Here. In this situation, the Ohio submarines managed to launch only 16-18 missiles

      Just .
      Quote: qwert
      It is these simulation results that formed the basis for the fact that we did not make launch vehicles for 24 rockets.

      In the USSR, with the technical characteristics of a poison rocket and its exorbitant weight (in 90t) versus Trident in 58t and two-hull designs of Soviet nuclear submarines. for . to drag 20 missiles. I had to do the Shark (30t. t. as opposed to 18t.t Ohio with 24-th rockets).
      What would turn the 24 rocket launcher into a generally unimaginable monster.
      This is the only reason.
      1. andrei.yandex
        andrei.yandex 2 February 2016 08: 40
        +1
        Incidentally, the United States is designing a new generation SSBN under 16 ICBMs. By the way, the displacement of SSBN 941 projects must also take into account operating conditions in the Arctic Ocean. By the way, the United States has a lot of navies around the world, including in warm regions, so they have different tactics of application. Therefore, for breaking ice, it is desirable to have a boat with a larger displacement, but this is also determined by the cost of efficiency. At that moment, apparently - this is also taken into account.
        1. atalef
          atalef 2 February 2016 09: 02
          +2
          Quote: andrei.yandex
          Incidentally, the United States is designing a new generation SSBN under 16 ICBMs. By the way, the displacement of SSBN 941 projects must also take into account operating conditions in the Arctic Ocean. By the way, the United States has a lot of navies around the world, including in warm regions, so they have different tactics of application. Therefore, for breaking ice, it is desirable to have a boat with a larger displacement, but this is also determined by the cost of efficiency. At that moment, apparently - this is also taken into account.

          Fairy tales. The states first crossed the arctic ocean under the ice and surfaced at the pole.
          Further, the primary opening of ice is made by the air bubble released by the boat.
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 2 February 2016 12: 01
            +5
            Quote: atalef
            Fairy tales. The states first crossed the arctic ocean under the ice and surfaced at the pole. Further, the primary opening of ice is made by the air bubble released by the boat.

            It is one thing to cross, another to constantly exploit. And about opening the ice with an air bubble - please, in more detail and preferably with a source.
          2. Nehist
            Nehist 2 February 2016 17: 13
            -1
            Do not carry nonsense! This is a one-time ascent! But Sovetskie boats did this regularly.
            1. mine
              mine 4 February 2016 17: 42
              -1
              YOU are talking nonsense, just the enemy did it and does it regularly
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 5 February 2016 19: 16
                -1
                Quote: mina
                YOU are talking nonsense, just the enemy did it and does it regularly

                Is this the ice that fishermen are afraid to go on?
          3. Bayonet
            Bayonet 2 February 2016 21: 56
            +1
            Quote: atalef

            Fairy tales. The states first crossed the arctic ocean under the ice and surfaced at the pole.

            On August 3, 1958, the Nautilus became the first ship in history to reach the North Pole under its own power.
            (cry)
          4. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 3 February 2016 02: 38
            +1
            Quote: atalef
            Further, the primary opening of ice is made by the air bubble released by the boat.

            Sasha, do not believe in fairy tales that a bubble can crack 2 pack ice. Torpedo - yes, the 941 body was breaking 2,7m. And the bubble ... alas. yes
        2. Lt. Air Force stock
          Lt. Air Force stock 2 February 2016 10: 41
          -1
          Quote: andrei.yandex
          Incidentally, the United States is designing a new generation SSBN under 16 ICBMs. By the way, the displacement of SSBN 941 projects must also take into account operating conditions in the Arctic Ocean. By the way, the United States has a lot of navies around the world, including in warm regions, so they have different tactics of application. Therefore, for breaking ice, it is desirable to have a boat with a larger displacement, but this is also determined by the cost of efficiency. At that moment, apparently - this is also taken into account.

          16 is enough for them, by the way, they plan to build new submarines in the amount of 12 units, we are Boreas in the amount of 8 units (yes there are so far submarines of project 667 BDRM, but their resource is coming to an end). Considering that we have fewer submarines on patrol at the same time as the United States, it just makes sense for us to build Boreas with 24 mines.
      2. Ascetic
        Ascetic 2 February 2016 10: 07
        +5
        Quote: atalef
        In the USSR, with the technical characteristics of a poison rocket and its exorbitant weight (in 90t) versus Trident in 58t and two-hull designs of Soviet nuclear submarines. for . to drag 20 missiles. I had to do the Shark (30t. t. as opposed to 18t.t Ohio with 24-th rockets).


        Again one-sided approach. Compare MGX and TTX without taking into account the conditions and tactics of combat use.
        RBP of Soviet submarines are mainly located in the Arctic seas under ice. Accordingly, under such conditions there should be fewer boats and more missiles, because there are not so many places and areas from which you can shoot / remember the series of hydrographic expeditions "North Pole" whose task was to study ice and currents of the Arctic seas for the use of SSBNs /
        RBMs of American submarines are located in the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean, where they are vulnerable to "hunting" multipurpose nuclear submarines and other anti-submarines. Accordingly, there should be more submarines, less mass and with reduced noise, and SLCM equipment implies the task of covertly advancing to the closest distance to the enemy's coastal zone. Soviet boats did not need this. That's all.


        ATLA US Patrol Combat Patrol Areas


        US SSBN Pacific Patrol Combat Patrol Areas

        Educational program
        Comparative analysis (33) of the creation and development of the naval strategic nuclear forces of the USSR and the USA
        1. atalef
          atalef 2 February 2016 10: 55
          +1
          Quote: Ascetic
          The RBF of Soviet submarines is mainly in the Arctic seas under the ice. Accordingly, under such conditions there should be fewer boats and more missiles,
          Hi, Stanislav, I haven’t seen you in a while, just sitting in an ambush under the Arctic ice hi
          But in general, based on your theory - you're probably right, only in practice the USSR had - more boats and fewer missiles.
          Does not fit.
          1. Ascetic
            Ascetic 2 February 2016 12: 51
            -1
            Quote: atalef
            But in general, based on your theory - you're probably right, only in practice the USSR had - more boats and fewer missiles.
            Does not fit.


            Sasha. Which RPKSN boats or multipurpose? If it does not change the memory of boats equipped with ICBMs there were built 13 in the USSR 6 Dolphins and 7 Sharks you can add 3 Boreas, a total of 16 in the whole history. Ohio Americans have 18 pieces +4 English Wengard + 4 French triumphs.
            With regards to the application, before the appearance of sea-based ICBMs, our boats with infantry-infantry fighting systems were completely vulnerable. After ...
            The need to overcome anti-submarine borders was eliminated by the mid-1970s, when the R-29 intercontinental SLBM (7800 km) was adopted for the SSBN pr.667B.

            These ships could carry out combat patrols in the marginal seas of the USSR: since 1974 in the Barents, White, Kara, Norwegian, since 1976 the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the Sea of ​​Japan, as well as in ice-covered areas of the Arctic. In these areas, so-called "Protected battle areas." Multipurpose nuclear submarines served in these areas, and where it was possible BNK and aviation. Tactical techniques were worked out: firing SLBMs from the pier in the above-water position, from the SSBN position on the ground, with ice forcing and subsequent launching of missiles. An increase in the firing range of SLBMs and a decrease in the visibility of SSBNs led to the fact that the strategic nuclear forces became the least vulnerable component of the strategic nuclear forces of the USSR, and the detection and destruction of Soviet SSBNs with intercontinental SLBMs before using them became practically impossible81 (KBU 0,9).

            What are we talking about
            1. spravochnik
              spravochnik 2 February 2016 13: 59
              +3
              [/ quote] Sasha. Which RPKSN boats or multipurpose? If it does not change the memory of boats equipped with ICBMs It was built only 13 in the USSR 6 Dolphins and 7 Sharks, you can also add 3 Boreas, a total of 16 in the whole history.
              [/ Quote]

              Where does this information come from? Throughout the USSR throughout history. I do not take experimental ones, converted from boats of early projects. Etc. 667A "Navaga" - 34 pcs; project 667B "Murena" - 18 units; 667BD "Murena-M" - 4 pieces; 667BDR "Kalmar" - 14 pcs; Project 667BDRM "Dolphin" - 7 units; Project 941 "Shark" - 6 pcs; "Boreas" - 3 pcs. Now we stupidly add, and we get - 86 pcs.
              To this amount can be added 8 nuclear submarines, pr. 658-658M and 24 diesel-electric submarines, pr. 629-629A, but we will not. We consider them not strategic not cruisers.
              1. Ascetic
                Ascetic 3 February 2016 07: 13
                0
                Quote: spravochnik
                Etc. 667A "Navaga" - 34 pcs; project 667B "Murena" - 18 units; 667BD "Murena-M" - 4 pcs; 667BDR "Kalmar" - 14 pcs; etc


                These boats were armed with a ballistic missile force and not an ICBM, read carefully, I’m talking
                Quote: Ascetic
                boats equipped with ICBMs
          2. Nehist
            Nehist 2 February 2016 17: 18
            -4
            And how about the power of ammunition as it doesn’t say anything? Plus the accuracy of the defeat of ICBM tips was many times better. Therefore, the Ohio submarines took the amount! A volley with all missiles at once is not possible at all, to be honest, it is not possible on our boats
            1. mine
              mine 4 February 2016 17: 41
              -1
              YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY incompetent
        2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 2 February 2016 10: 49
        0
        Quote: atalef

        In the USSR, with the technical characteristics of a poison rocket and its exorbitant weight (in 90t) versus Trident in 58t and two-hull designs of Soviet nuclear submarines. for . to drag 20 missiles. I had to do the Shark (30t. t. as opposed to 18t.t Ohio with 24-th rockets).
        What would turn the 24 rocket launcher into a generally unimaginable monster.
        This is the only reason.

        Not really, if we take into account the submarines of the Shark project, then yes, there is one missile weighing 90 tons, in addition, the submarine was specially built so large to break ice and launch missiles, it has a 40% buoyancy.
        And if you take the submarines of Project 667BDRM with Sineva, then you could increase the number of mines from 16 to 24, without a serious increase in displacement.

        We calculate the hypothetical displacement of 667BDRM with an increase in displacement.
        with 16 missiles, a displacement of 18200 tons, 18200 / 16 = 1137,5, 1137,5 * 24 = 27300 tons would be the mass of a submarine with 24 Sinev missiles. The calculations are primitive of course.
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 2 February 2016 17: 23
          -1
          As far as I remember, such a project was considered, it was worth only to weld an additional compartment.
          1. mine
            mine 4 February 2016 17: 40
            0
            WHERE to "weld"?!?!
            what nafig "COMPARTMENT"?!?!?

            YOU in your MIS what did you do? Cows at the state farm commanded?
      4. spravochnik
        spravochnik 2 February 2016 11: 07
        +1
        Quote: atalef

        In the USSR, with the technical characteristics of a poison rocket and its exorbitant weight (in 90t) versus Trident in 58t and two-hull designs of Soviet nuclear submarines. for . to drag 20 missiles. I had to do the Shark (30t. t. as opposed to 18t.t Ohio with 24-th rockets).
        What would turn the 24 rocket launcher into a generally unimaginable monster.
        This is the only reason.

        In general, the underwater displacement of Project 941 is 48 tons, and it carries 20 missiles. I don't think the addition of 4 missiles will make her an even bigger monster. Well, there will be 50 tons instead of 48. Such an exorbitant displacement is caused by the adopted architecture of the hull (multi-hull with a large inter-hull space). Because of this, they were nicknamed "water carriers" in the navy.
        1. mine
          mine 4 February 2016 17: 39
          -1
          no there 48
          MUCH LESS
      5. Scraptor
        Scraptor 4 February 2016 07: 40
        0
        Well, and how does adding four missiles extend the nuclear submarines by more than 10 meters, after which it would immediately become a monster? bully
        And where did you get information about the characteristics of Soviet missiles? Soviet submarines can launch them directly from the berths without leaving the base and get them anywhere in the United States.
    2. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 2 February 2016 10: 57
      +1
      Quote: qwert
      At one time he was in the central hospital KTOF. The officers in the ward argued that in the event of the deployment of our fleet in advance. Those. when the strike is not sudden, but at first there is an aggravation, the transfer of the fleet to increased combat readiness. Here. In this situation, the Ohio submarines managed to launch only 16-18 missiles, after which they were destroyed. It was these simulation results that formed the basis for the fact that we did not start making boats carrying 24 missiles. Although they could. It's cheaper though. "boats for 24 missiles than 3 for 16.

      According to Wikipedia, missile launches from Ohio are carried out with an interval of 15-20 seconds.
      Consequently, a full salvo of 24 missiles will take from 6 minutes to 8 minutes. If only the multipurpose Russian submarine was following Ohio then it would destroy it and most likely even before the start of the volley by indirect signs (Ohio should swim to a depth of 30 meters and move at a speed of no more than 6 knots).
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 2 February 2016 11: 58
        +1
        Quote: Lt. air force reserve
        If only the multipurpose Russian submarine was following Ohio then it would destroy it and most likely even before the start of the volley by indirect signs (Ohio should swim to a depth of 30 meters and move at a speed of no more than 6 knots).

        Just before that, you need to find / exit / break into the Ohio patrol area, while avoiding contact with anti-submarine forces, SOSUS-type arrays, find Ohio with its silent mode of movement, withstand the battle with the forces covering the Ohio (Los Angeles, Sivulf, Virginia) - and only then come into confrontation with Ohio. Or her robots.
        1. Anton Gavrilov
          Anton Gavrilov 2 February 2016 12: 49
          +2
          her robots


          ??????????????????????????
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 2 February 2016 13: 11
            +1
            Quote: Anton Gavrilov
            ??????????????????????????

            Robots or marine unmanned autonomous systems
            "... the USS North Dakota (SSN-784) Virginia-class nuclear-powered torpedo submarine, during its first dive in the summer of 2015, successfully launched and returned on board the Remus 600 unmanned underwater vehicle ..." http: // warfiles. ru / show-106311-nl-podvodnye-roboty-pokazhut-kto-silnee-v-more-ss
            ha-ili-rossiya.html
            What are so many question marks? Do drones still seem unusual?
            1. Anton Gavrilov
              Anton Gavrilov 3 February 2016 08: 27
              0
              What are so many question marks? Do drones still seem unusual?


              For your reference, ON OHIO there is NO BPA AND EVERYTHING EVERYTHING WILL NEVER BE

              For Virginia is generally a completely different type, a completely different generation, a completely different level of technology.
              1. sevtrash
                sevtrash 3 February 2016 09: 38
                -1
                Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                For your reference, ON OHIO there is NO BPA AND EVERYTHING EVERYTHING WILL NEVER BE

                Your level of knowledge can only be envied. If Ohio will be decommissioned in 2040, then it turns out you SEPTOR PROPHET and you already know its equipment for 25 years in advance! belay Oh, and probably the creators of Ohio do not know this yet, but you know! wassat They probably need to contact you for advice. And they don’t know! What a tragedy!
                The link is probably not worth asking?
                1. Anton Gavrilov
                  Anton Gavrilov 3 February 2016 18: 42
                  0
                  Your level of knowledge can only be envied.


                  You surely ....

                  So for reference plans for equipping VPT nuts, there wasn’t and wasn’t, and from TA they can’t use BPA, because only Sea Wolf can do this with their 660mm pipes ....

                  And they don’t have to do it, because their buckets are already being built to the full. They can be used freely. They can also upgrade the first 2 100% series accordingly.
                  1. sevtrash
                    sevtrash 3 February 2016 21: 04
                    -1
                    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                    You surely ....

                    It's not your "level" of knowledge to envy for sure ...
                    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                    and from TA they can’t use BPA, because only Si Wolves with their 660mm pipes can do it ....

                    ?????????????????????????????????????
                    Take a look at the classification, I have already given the link to the article more than once, if your level of knowledge does not include the size of the UUV.
      2. Mooh
        Mooh 2 February 2016 16: 49
        0
        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
        Quote: qwert
        At one time he was in the central hospital KTOF. The officers in the ward argued that in the event of the deployment of our fleet in advance. Those. when the strike is not sudden, but at first there is an aggravation, the transfer of the fleet to increased combat readiness. Here. In this situation, the Ohio submarines managed to launch only 16-18 missiles, after which they were destroyed. It was these simulation results that formed the basis for the fact that we did not start making boats carrying 24 missiles. Although they could. It's cheaper though. "boats for 24 missiles than 3 for 16.

        According to Wikipedia, missile launches from Ohio are carried out with an interval of 15-20 seconds.
        Consequently, a full salvo of 24 missiles will take from 6 minutes to 8 minutes. If only the multipurpose Russian submarine was following Ohio then it would destroy it and most likely even before the start of the volley by indirect signs (Ohio should swim to a depth of 30 meters and move at a speed of no more than 6 knots).

        Now I am stigmatized with a fool, but there is an opinion that Ohio, in principle, cannot shoot in full salvo, because due to a structural defect it will not withstand the loads. The opinion is not mine, I heard at different times from two independent Moreman.
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 2 February 2016 17: 28
          -3
          Our boats also can’t shoot in full gulp! great deformation of the body! Those and those can smell it but it will send the boat to the bottom
          1. Lt. Air Force stock
            Lt. Air Force stock 2 February 2016 18: 25
            +1
            Quote: Nehist
            Our boats also can’t shoot in full gulp! great deformation of the body! Those and those can smell it but it will send the boat to the bottom

            But what about Operation Behemoth and Behemoth-2? There, in one salvo, our 16 missiles were launched.
            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%82_(%D0%BE
            %D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F)
            1. Nehist
              Nehist 2 February 2016 18: 57
              -5
              Have you seen these boats after launch? And the launch of rockets was carried out almost from the surface
              1. Lt. Air Force stock
                Lt. Air Force stock 2 February 2016 22: 51
                +1
                Quote: Nehist
                Have you seen these boats after launch? And the launch of rockets was carried out almost from the surface

                Well, the missiles were launched from underwater position, and as for the state of the submarine after the launch, in case of war the SSBN will hardly have the opportunity to return to the base to load new missiles and shoot again.
                After the launch of ballistic missiles, the SSBN turns into an ordinary multipurpose submarine, and is already fighting conventional submarines and enemy ships with conventional weapons.
                By the way, at the start of the Sineva mine, water was filled, when the rocket was launched, water could create additional hydrodynamic vibrations when the rocket left the mine. With dry-launch solid rockets, in theory, it should be simpler, the rocket in the air bubble is pushed out of the TPK under pressure, leaves the water and the main engine is switched on at a height of 10-15 meters.
              2. KakoVedi
                KakoVedi 2 February 2016 23: 21
                0
                And where else should they be launched from? From the bottom of the oceans? Almost full-time launch, in accordance with the norms and requirements of manuals and other. And what impressed you so much in their appearance?
              3. mine
                mine 4 February 2016 17: 37
                -2
                Monsieur Kozlozop (oh sorry, MISovets)
                missiles are launched not "almost from the surface" but from the STARTING CORRIDOR
          2. mine
            mine 4 February 2016 17: 38
            -1
            YOUR nonsense and nonsense are simply enchanting
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 3 February 2016 02: 56
          +1
          Quote: MooH
          Ohio, in principle, can not shoot in full gulp, because due to a structural defect it can not withstand the loads. The opinion is not mine, I heard at different times from two independent Moreman.
          Nut shoots in series at 4. Practice - on 2 and that's it! then they run to the base and check all silos and missiles. It will be hard to say how big it will be when kneading. But I think everything will be as practiced around the world.
      3. Nehist
        Nehist 2 February 2016 17: 26
        -2
        so this is a no brainer! always close to theirs and to our strategists, as a rule, hunters were.
        1. mine
          mine 4 February 2016 17: 35
          0
          Do not hurt bullshit, it hurts!
  6. FID
    FID 2 February 2016 09: 00
    +4
    It’s a pity the USSR, that’s all !!!
  7. Engineer
    Engineer 2 February 2016 09: 36
    +7
    The boat itself never impressed me, but its Trident 2 rockets are an undeniable engineering masterpiece. That miscarriage of MIT in the form of a Mace at the time was called a Pin in comparison with it. What is especially sad is that the Makeevskaya Sineva, the world's best liquid-propellant sea-launched missile, will soon disappear into oblivion, and this "masterpiece" will take its place.
    1. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 2 February 2016 10: 43
      +1
      Quote: Engineer
      The boat itself never impressed me, but its Trident 2 rockets are an undeniable engineering masterpiece. That miscarriage of MIT in the form of a Mace at the time was called a Pin in comparison with it. What is especially sad is that the Makeevskaya Sineva, the world's best liquid-propellant sea-launched missile, will soon disappear into oblivion, and this "masterpiece" will take its place.

      It was necessary to bring the Bark rocket to mind. She was the answer to Trident 2.
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 2 February 2016 11: 15
        +1
        It was necessary to. It was possible to make smaller boats, because there was no need to break through the ice to launch the Bark. A shaped-charge nozzle was planned on the rocket, which broke the ice at launch.
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 2 February 2016 11: 13
      +1
      The world's best SLBM, the Makeevskaya "liner", the further development of the "Sineva".
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 2 February 2016 11: 23
        0
        Quote: spravochnik
        The world's best SLBM, the Makeevskaya "liner", the further development of the "Sineva".

        Sineva, like Liner, had liquid rockets, and Bark was solid fuel. The disadvantage of liquid rockets is the complexity of the design and the fact that the mines need to be filled with water before the rocket starts.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 2 February 2016 12: 04
          +1
          And who argues with that. But in terms of mass-dimensional characteristics to the cast weight "Liner" is the best.
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 3 February 2016 03: 02
          +1
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          The disadvantage of liquid rockets is the complexity of the design and the fact that the mines need to be filled with water before the rocket starts.

          Makevtsy proactively developed the P-29ПМУ3 with a dry mortar launch (from the PAD). Infa is true, because its carrier is RUDOLF. Old Volchara never talks about what he does not know. Checked. yes
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 2 February 2016 13: 31
      +2
      Quote: Engineer
      What is especially sad is that the Makeevskaya Sineva, the world's best liquid-propellant sea-launched missile, will soon disappear into oblivion, and this "masterpiece" will take its place.

      No, Sineva went through modernization and got the ICBM Liner. With regards to the Mace ... in defense of this ICBM I will say that the first Tridents were not the top of engineering, because they brought and improved during the operation, which is what awaits our Mace. And I think years in 10, our solid-fuel ICBMs will be best in class.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 3 February 2016 03: 06
        +1
        Quote: NEXUS
        With regards to the Mace ... in defense of this ICBM I will say ..
        she has an OUT 4 times shorter than ICBMs and 2 times shorter than Sineva. Given the naval missile defense system with the Aigis SM-3, it was accepted. Plus unification with the Yars.
        Total - "MIT Moscow won, although at first it did not convince" (c).
  8. da Vinci
    da Vinci 2 February 2016 11: 06
    +1
    The undisputed advantage of the U.S. Navy is the availability of bases around the world, which allows you to significantly save the subfuel resource, perform combat missions for a longer time (saving time on long transitions), and also effectively deploy submarines throughout the oceans while controlling many targets at the same time. wink
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 2 February 2016 12: 38
      +6
      The advantage of their fleet is also - high unification. Small
      the number of TYPES of ships and a large number of ships of each
      type: 10 of the same type of aircraft carriers, 65 of the same type of destroyers, 18
      submarines of the same type, etc. They are easy to maintain, train crews,
      do MOT, make parts.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 2 February 2016 13: 16
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        They are easy to maintain, train crews,
        do MOT, make parts.

        + More security. The submariners learned to control the submarine and skills are further developed to automatism, and we have a bunch of types of submarines, often crews transferred from one type to another, which increased the risk of human error.
      2. Nehist
        Nehist 2 February 2016 17: 36
        -7
        Here I agree with you! But sharpening under unevirusality does not lead to good!
      3. KakoVedi
        KakoVedi 2 February 2016 23: 24
        +1
        Nonsense! The main advantage of the Yankees is the constant presence of ships in the sea! To the maximum!
  9. guzik007
    guzik007 2 February 2016 11: 13
    +3
    I am really in a mess! But what about stupid Americans, about whom only the lazy ones did not wipe their feet here, minus, including me, mercilessly all who have a different opinion.
    He, Mikhalych!
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 2 February 2016 11: 19
      +1
      And here are stupid. Just a different approach to design. All American nuclear submarines are single-hull, with a small buoyancy margin (3-5%), almost all Soviet submarines are double-hull, with a buoyancy margin of 20-25%.
    2. Anton Gavrilov
      Anton Gavrilov 2 February 2016 12: 50
      +3
      And sho you expected here on a cheers-patriotic site, endure, as I sometimes have to.
  10. sevtrash
    sevtrash 2 February 2016 11: 17
    0
    Yes, impressive - Ohio itself, its weapons, base, everything seems perfect. But, interestingly, that mode - silent, when the turbines and the gearbox are turned off - is there such an analogue on Russian nuclear submarines, if so, what is its efficiency? Anyway, it would be interesting to know the noise in decibels of Ohio, Shark, Boreus, Seawulf, Virginia, Ash. And NAPL too. Still one of the priority indicators. Nobody met?
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 2 February 2016 12: 14
      0
      At the CIA and SVR, please.
      1. KakoVedi
        KakoVedi 2 February 2016 23: 27
        0
        The CIA is unlikely ... Such a trifle does not interest them! Here's a coup stir up ... Or fill up someone.
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 2 February 2016 12: 42
      0
      Soviet submarines were equipped with silent-running electric motors.
      1. KakoVedi
        KakoVedi 2 February 2016 23: 27
        0
        And the oars ... The creak of oarlocks does not exceed the natural background!
    3. Anton Gavrilov
      Anton Gavrilov 2 February 2016 12: 52
      0
      For reference, the announcement of the exact values ​​of the acoustic field is treason, the disclosure of state secrets of the highest level, and it’s just stupid betrayal, it’s punishable accordingly.
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 2 February 2016 13: 33
        +1
        Quote: Anton Gavrilov
        For reference, the announcement of the exact values ​​of the acoustic field is treason, the disclosure of state secrets of the highest level, and it’s just stupid betrayal, it’s punishable accordingly.

        Yes, yes, only the likely enemy already knows this information with very high probability. From agents stages from design to construction, not to mention the survey data during the operation of nuclear submarines at sea. Once I read and here someone confirmed that when the new Soviet submarine was first released, it seemed as if by chance they found an American nuclear submarine under the tugboat / support vessel, which controlled this first exit.
        Previously, under the USSR, this happened before, in Soviet magazines, information about Soviet technology was uploaded from foreign military magazines, in order to avoid accusations of divulging secrets. Open secret.
        Maybe there is already such an article, foreign, in which this information is available. What I ask.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 2 February 2016 14: 17
          +1
          There are such articles, only how reliable they are. a large share of market trends.
        2. gjv
          gjv 2 February 2016 15: 36
          +2
          Quote: sevtrash
          Yes, yes, only the likely enemy already knows this information with very high probability. From agents stages from design to construction, not to mention

          My boss used to say: "You have just come to us, and the adversaries already know who your grandmother slept with and how many false teeth she has." bully
        3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Mooh
      Mooh 2 February 2016 16: 52
      0
      Can you also lay out a high-resolution photo of the screw? laughing
      1. kote119
        kote119 2 February 2016 17: 12
        +3
        photos of screws are now in the public domain with excellent resolution - look I do not want laughing
    5. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 3 February 2016 03: 36
      +2
      Quote: sevtrash
      But, interestingly, that mode - silent, when the turbines and gearbox are turned off - there is such an analogue on Russian nuclear submarines,
      Ash - up to 20 the house is as quiet as possible. Efficiency also depends on the depth of immersion. The deeper, the greater the course you can give.
      Quote: sevtrash
      decibel noise
      Not very thick, but open source:
      663pr sold to China showed 117db
      971pr for noise is equal to Elk, in which 120Db
      885pr - system of active noise reduction 50-500Hz, etc. - at the level of natural noise of the sea.
      955pr - has 5 times less noise than 971 and 949A pr and 2 times less than that of Virginia (21.12.2010, General Director of CDB "Rubin" AA Dyachkov).
      By amer, you can find it yourself if you wish.
      1. Anton Gavrilov
        Anton Gavrilov 3 February 2016 08: 19
        0
        955pr - has 5 times less noise than 971 and 949A pr and 2 times less than that of Virginia (21.12.2010, General Director of CDB "Rubin" AA Dyachkov).


        Bullshit is complete, it couldn’t be any quieter than the Bucket, unless of course the achrinitic damping / distortion systems of physical fields were set (which is doubtful).

        Even if we follow elementary logic, like a boat with an electromechanical part of the level of the 3 generation, it can surpass in the primary ak-field a boat that fully corresponds to the 4-m, and even with a significantly smaller hydrodynamic field, much smaller VI and others ?

        Here is 955A, here we will see, there everything is already as it should.
      2. sevtrash
        sevtrash 3 February 2016 10: 11
        -1
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Not very thick, but open source:
        663pr sold to China showed 117db
        971pr for noise is equal to Elk, in which 120Db
        885pr - system of active noise reduction 50-500Hz, etc. - at the level of natural noise of the sea.
        955pr - has 5 times less noise than 971 and 949A pr and 2 times less than that of Virginia (21.12.2010, General Director of CDB "Rubin" AA Dyachkov).
        By amer, you can find it yourself if you wish.

        Thanks, but that doesn't seem to be that much. 115-120 decibels on a volume scale - extremely noisy, to a jackhammer. Perhaps this is at maximum speed, and even next to the boat.
        And it meant in the mode of covert combat patrol.
  11. qwert
    qwert 2 February 2016 12: 23
    +1
    Quote: atalef
    In the USSR, with the technical characteristics of a poison rocket and its exorbitant weight (in 90t) versus Trident in 58t and two-hull designs of Soviet nuclear submarines. for . to drag 20 missiles. I had to do the Shark (30t. t. as opposed to 18t.t Ohio with 24-th rockets).
    What would turn the 24 rocket launcher into a generally unimaginable monster.
    This is the only reason.

    So let's compare two analogue missiles: P-29 (USSR) and Trident-2 (USA)
    Mass: 43t and 59tn (Amer’s heavier as we see)
    Launch range: 8300 km. and 7600 km.
    Number of warheads: 10 and 14
    Mass of the head: 2800 kg. and 2800kg
    Warhead Power: 10x100ct (or 4x200) and 14x100ct
    Type of head: RGCH IN and RGCH IN
    QUO: 500 and 500 (which GPS will definitely no longer have 120 during startup)
    As we see in OHIO, we could put 30 of our missiles with even better performance. (On the Sharks of the R-39 missile, but that was such a decision, on all other Soviet R-29 SSBNs, they were the main ones in our fleet)
    Why, with equal throwing mass 2800kg in the Soviet 10 missile, the warheads in the American 14 are equal in power. However, in the Soviet part of the weight is used to provide missile defense i.e. on false warheads and an active jamming system. In general, the debatable question is how many of 14 Trident warheads and how many of 10 P-29 will hit the target successfully. Our developers believe that here the advantage is on our side.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 2 February 2016 12: 37
      0
      Quote: qwert
      As we see in OHIO, we could put 30 of our missiles with even better performance. (On the Sharks of the R-39 missile, but that was such a decision, on all other Soviet R-29 SSBNs, they were the main ones in our fleet)

      Not quite so, except for the weight of the rocket and their silos have certain dimensions. And they are about equal. So in "Ohio" you can cram the same 24 P-29s, only the displacement will decrease.
  12. qwert
    qwert 2 February 2016 12: 25
    -5
    Quote: sevtrash
    Yes, impressive - Ohio itself, its weapons, base, everything seems perfect. But, interestingly, that mode - silent, when the turbines and the gearbox are turned off - is there such an analogue on Russian nuclear submarines, if so, what is its efficiency?

    And you read on this site the article "Myths of the USA. Roaring Cows of the Soviet Navy" Everything will fall into place
    1. Anton Gavrilov
      Anton Gavrilov 2 February 2016 12: 54
      +4
      The fact that our 1-2 boats and partly the 3 generations were significantly inferior to the Americans in stealth and detection range is not a secret for anyone. And this article is complete crap.
      1. mine
        mine 4 February 2016 18: 57
        -1
        like the third
  13. su navy
    su navy 2 February 2016 14: 01
    +1
    Waltasar, there is nothing to save. "Sharks" are gone. My TK-17 and TK-20 have already been prepared for cutting. Bespaliy and Co, bastards, did everything to destroy, in particular, the Fleet.
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 2 February 2016 17: 43
      -2
      this is a shame! At the moment, the best submarine missile cruiser has not yet been created
  14. kote119
    kote119 2 February 2016 14: 04
    +1
    Quote: Lt. air force reserve
    often crews transferred from one type to another, which increased the risk of human error.

    where did you get about this practice in our fleet? I have never heard that the crew of some RTMKi was transplanted to the loaf or in that spirit.
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 2 February 2016 17: 46
      -1
      There are two crews on each boat! their base places were called the semi-crew, one in the sea the second on the shore
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 2 February 2016 18: 11
        +2
        Right. Only, these are crews one boats, not "fire brigades" thrown from boat to boat.
        1. KakoVedi
          KakoVedi 2 February 2016 23: 34
          0
          In the early 90s there was nothing!
      2. kote119
        kote119 2 February 2016 18: 24
        +2
        each crew is formed and trained for a certain type of boat and it is used on a specific project of pl and is not transferred to other projects, about which places of basing some "half-crews", about which you write it is not clear, if you meant the crews of the lay boats, then on they have only one crew, and these boats are at the pier awaiting disposal
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 2 February 2016 19: 03
          -1
          Did I say the opposite? I do not know your experience in the service in the Navy; I personally served in the MIS KTOF. Without us, no box could go to sea. So the semi-crew is the base of the resting crew.
          1. kote119
            kote119 2 February 2016 22: 07
            +1
            I understand you, but they do not burn in the sea, half-crews explode and drown, there the crew does it. but where if it’s not a secret they served at KTOF?
          2. mine
            mine 4 February 2016 17: 33
            0
            AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
            "animals have a million grudges against people"
            MIS - swimming crew crew - is a bunch of freaks (sweetly champing the budgetary loot in 90x) despite the fact that their work was carried out by the crew all the time

            while you are stupid like a cork!

            ... about MIS and crew ...
            with the participation of the NS division (correct)
            - on the pier there was "0", warhead-5 "ones" - "zero" MIS, from MIS - "zero" submariners.
            NSh - someone nae me ... t ...
            and assigns "boxing" - on the bridge at 11.00 "tomorrow".
            Tomorrow - a megameter TIME (towards the boat), and a megameter TWO (towards the MIS networks)
            After that, turn to MISovts and BAM !!!
            - I will complain!!! (MISovets)
            Bang !!!
      3. mine
        mine 4 February 2016 17: 24
        -1
        just laugh
        Monsieur, all the time you are talking enchanting nonsense, but this one - "half-ekiazh" - cool !!!! :)))))))))))))
        Please continue! :)))))))))))
      4. mine
        mine 4 February 2016 17: 24
        0
        just laugh
        Monsieur, all the time you are talking enchanting nonsense, but this one - "half-ekiazh" - cool !!!! :)))))))))))))
        Please continue! :)))))))))))
      5. mine
        mine 4 February 2016 17: 24
        0
        just laugh
        Monsieur, all the time you are talking enchanting nonsense, but this one - "half-ekiazh" - cool !!!! :)))))))))))))
        Please continue! :)))))))))))
  15. kote119
    kote119 2 February 2016 19: 01
    0
    Quote: CERHJ
    Because, under our carrier of many CDs and RCCs, project 949A is being modernized,

    not a single steamer of this project has been modernized, everything is only on paper and thoughts
  16. Old26
    Old26 2 February 2016 21: 29
    0
    Quote: Magic Archer
    Why can’t they be modernized under Caliber’s carrier as the Americans did ?! With its size there could have been more than one hundred missiles installed!

    The same number as in the launcher on the Ohio, that is, 7. This means that the number of missiles will be approximately 140. So, alas, not "more than one hundred missiles"

    Quote: qwert
    Launch range: 8300 km. and 7600 km. Number of warheads: 10 and 14 Weight of the warhead: 2800 kg. and 2800kg

    Always (especially with us) they try not to give accurate data. For example, a distance of 8300 and a throw weight of 2800 kg are, alas, not the same thing. If you count on the basis of energy and mass characteristics (it is best to use Degtyar's book for this), then the rocket throws 2800 kg at a distance of just over 6000 km. It is necessary to count the "Trident"

    BTW ON STARTING THE WHOLE AMMUNITION
    Four Tridents were launched at Ohio. But from our 4BDRM - only TWO missiles and 667 simulators, which had fuel for 14-15 seconds of flight ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
  17. sgg
    sgg 3 February 2016 05: 44
    0
    It seems like more than the whole ammunition with nuclear submarines did not shoot [/ quote]
    This is not true. Within the framework of the Kishlak theme, two Project 941 boats launched the entire ammunition load.
  18. Wolka
    Wolka 3 February 2016 08: 33
    0
    The article is good, informative, but I am a land rat, therefore I may be mistaken, but the time of such monsters has passed, I think the prospect will still be behind some average utilitarian basic type of submarines, i.e. a "mosquito submarine fleet", similar to that of tankers, instead of light, medium and heavy tanks, there will be a main battle tank. Everything from the development of the types and types of weapons used. Indeed, at one time they abandoned large battleships, they were replaced by cruisers, now more and more destroyers, corvettes, missile launchers came to replace the cannon armament of the main caliber ... One of the reasons for such unification is funding.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 3 February 2016 10: 09
      0
      It is possible that this will be so. There will be a single silo, in which, depending on the task, they will load a different target load (ICBM, RCC, KR). But it is rather a distant prospect. And now, it is rather possible to use the principle of the base platform, when boats of different classes will differ in the presence of different cylindrical inserts with a complex of airborne weapons.
  19. netslave
    netslave 3 February 2016 08: 38
    0
    Displacement - 16 746 t (underwater), 18 750 t (surface).

    Author, scuba and surface mixed up.
  20. aviator1913
    aviator1913 3 February 2016 11: 40
    0
    Great article. Thanks to the author.
  21. gregor6549
    gregor6549 3 February 2016 12: 34
    0
    I would like to draw attention to two points:
    1. The development of the coastal infrastructure for basing the US Navy in general and nuclear submarines in particular, as well as the fact that ship crews are provided with all the conditions for normal work and rest both on board ships and on shore.
    2. Possibilities of launching ballistic missiles from any point where the nuclear submarine is located, including from a base point.
    3 Single-hull architecture of American nuclear submarines (in contrast to the traditional two-hull Soviet and Russian submarines), which significantly reduces the noise of the boat.