Military Review

On the missile mines of the submarine "Arkhangelsk" install plugs

223
In accordance with the agreement on the reduction of offensive weapons (START) concluded between the United States and the Russian Federation, specialists of the Zvezdochka ship repair center in the current year will disable the missile system of the world's largest nuclear submarine Arkhangelsk (project 941U), MIC with reference to the press service of the enterprise.




“In accordance with the START Treaty, Zvezdochka will dismantle the covers of the submarine’s missile shafts and install plugs on them, which will make it impossible to use the ship’s missiles. Work will be carried out during this year, ”the release says.

“While there is no question of recycling, the cutting of Arkhangelsk is not in progress. The tender for dismantling the ship has not yet been announced, ”the press service added.

In total, 6 such submarines were built at Sevmash enterprise (1976-1989). Three of them have already been decommissioned. fleet and disposed of.

Help newspaper: "Strategic missile carriers of the 941" Shark "project had 20 ammunition of RSM-52 missiles, each of which had 10 detachable headpieces of individual guidance. The length of the ship is 172 m, width - 23,3 m, draft - 11,5 m., It is listed in the Guinness Book of Records. Inside the steel light casing there are two durable enclosures with a diameter of 7,2 m, each divided into 8 compartments. Between them - 3 durable module: bow with six torpedo tubes caliber 533-mm, aft and central post. From such a "catamaran" arrangement of hulls and an unusually large width of the boat. "
Photos used:
ITAR-TASS
223 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bacha
    Bacha 11 March 2016 18: 47
    +23
    Something tells me that under the current situation in the world, ours will not do it in vain, the giant is apparently morally completely out of date.
    1. MARK
      MARK 11 March 2016 18: 53
      -36%
      In total, 6 such submarines were built at Sevmash Enterprise (1076-1989).

      What dates, they have been building for a long time ..))) And if, apart from jokes, we can still do without these "monsters in a good sense of the word" Russia won wars, with simplicity, reliability and power of weapons! We will strive for this ... hi
      1. Bacha
        Bacha 11 March 2016 19: 24
        +13
        Why are there so many minuses? In the recent past, there was debate on the use of calibers, how the whole west nervously smoked when he realized that almost any ship was defenseless against a missile boat, and the contents of such cars? Nowadays, this is not the time of the USSR. And then remember the Dora’s cannon from the Germans, and the Katyusha battery of mortar mortars gave a head start on firepower. And about the price of shells and Katyusha themselves, their mobility and maneuverability, we are generally silent. The soul is tearing when such ships are destroyed, recently the Urals also torn the soul, but times are different, different requirements. Although maybe I'm wrong, I'm just an optimist and today I blindly trust Putin.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. kuz363
          kuz363 11 March 2016 20: 26
          +33
          Do not bother all in a bunch. SNF is one thing that can hit US territory. The notorious calibers with a range of 2500 km of medium range cover only part of Europe and Asia. And the difference in the number of warheads. The submarine rocket has 10, the Caliber has 1. And the speed is kilometers per second and 900 km / h, like an airplane. Who is more likely to hit the target?
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 11 March 2016 20: 47
            +7
            Quote: kuz363
            Who is more likely to hit the target?

            The one who breaks through the PRO / Air Defense! and reach the designated target. yes
            1. krot
              krot 11 March 2016 21: 29
              +13
              They put plugs, but they don’t dispose of the boats. It seems more like conservation. I hope at the right time and a couple of dozen rockets will be found, and the stubs will be removed quickly.
              1. Aleksander
                Aleksander 11 March 2016 22: 49
                +24
                Quote: krot
                They put plugs, but they don’t dispose of boats

                Of course, amers’s boats are MUCH more, carrier planes MUCH more, mine-carriers the same, but only Russia is cutting. But there are still NATO nuclear forces from England, France ... Some sort of nonsense.
                1. g1v2
                  g1v2 12 March 2016 15: 25
                  +1
                  Do not interfere with strategic weapons with the rest. Strategists are under a START treaty - under it, the number of warheads and carriers is limited. Simply put, more strategic submarines - fewer missiles on land and so on. Sharks can be exchanged for example on railway complexes or yars. In total, the mattresses have 14 Ohio strategists - we have 6 dolphins, 3 Squids and 3 Boreas. That is 12 strategists versus 14. Another 5 Boreevs are under construction, or rather 4 are under construction and one is still being laid this year. Upon receipt, the Boreans will write off the Squids. As a result, there will be 6 dolphins and 8 Boreans versus 14 Ohio. 14 vs 14 - parity. It doesn’t make sense to build, because this weapon is only for atomic warfare and it’s easier and cheaper to build more yars or Sarmatians for parity. Th sharks are absolutely not needed in fact. hi
              2. ty60
                ty60 12 March 2016 00: 21
                -5
                We’ll put Sarmat later. Will there be no exact final data, will it fit? I think not. But let brains tear away conservation mattresses or not in the light of the decisions on TU-160. Analogy or ....?
              3. gispanec
                gispanec 12 March 2016 11: 36
                +1
                Quote: krot
                I hope at the right time and a couple dozen rockets

                will not be found .... after all, they were withdrawn from the fleet due to the lack of missiles ... made them in Dnepropetrovsk .... do you think ... svidomye will make us missiles?)) ... and without water missiles these water carriers useless ... modifying the same is not realistic ..... under the mace they were able to remake one shaft and that's it ....
            2. uge.garik
              uge.garik 12 March 2016 02: 07
              -1
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Who is more likely to hit the target?

              Who treats the agreements with the USA mutually adequately ... - they, as it were, are fulfilling, well, we are ready, as it were, not to violate ...
        3. NordUral
          NordUral 11 March 2016 20: 34
          +63
          And you estimate - 200 warheads from one boat. And think to whom these stubs are beneficial. We cannot cut a single unit in such a world.
          1. cniza
            cniza 11 March 2016 20: 40
            +13
            And what stubs are they? if that can be removed? or how ? There are a lot of questions and we don’t know much, but something tells me not everything is just like that ...
            1. Inok10
              Inok10 11 March 2016 20: 52
              +5
              Quote: cniza
              And what stubs are they? if that can be removed? or how ? There are a lot of questions and we don’t know much, but something tells me not everything is just like that ...

              ... a similar impression ... wait and see ... hi
              1. Baikonur
                Baikonur 11 March 2016 22: 50
                +7
                Quote: cniza
                And what stubs are they?
                There is a thread! But shh! owls secret!
                (for "if what") fellow
            2. Suhov
              Suhov 11 March 2016 23: 30
              +2
              Quote: cniza
              And what stubs are they? if that can be removed? or how ?

              The plug quickly shoots off, and the rocket starts in the battle :) wassat
              1. cap
                cap 12 March 2016 03: 01
                +3
                Quote: Baikonur
                Quote: cniza
                And what stubs are they?
                There is a thread! But shh! owls secret!
                (for "if what") fellow

                Quote: Sukhov
                Quote: cniza
                And what stubs are they? if that can be removed? or how ?

                The plug quickly shoots off, and the rocket starts in the battle :) wassat


                Let the squibs stand at the pier under the plugs (made of plastic). While the repair is being modernized for new missiles, the shot can be fired even faster. From the crew only rocket men, in shifts. It's like a "poplar" on the blocks.
                Remember the joke about the last missile lying around in the warehouse.
                The option is similar.
                Or another joke.
                "-do not be free, girl, this is ne dagger is chehol."
                Patent. Although I think specialists from the General Staff think in the same way.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. n.kolesnichenko
            n.kolesnichenko 11 March 2016 20: 42
            +11
            And where can I get the rockets? !! ​​Don't let them out anymore !!!
            1. gray smeet
              gray smeet 11 March 2016 21: 09
              +13
              Quote: n.kolesnichenko
              And where can I get the rockets? !! ​​Don't let them out anymore !!!


              For many, the site is not the main thing! No one asks that nuclear carriers are strictly regulated by a well-known agreement, which means that this boat (not functioning and not having missiles, but this is a fact) is considered a carrier until there are these plugs ... Conclusion - as if this boat is not good but in fact it does not give the right to life to new boats, with new missiles !!
              1. Alex777
                Alex777 11 March 2016 23: 29
                +4
                What about converted to Ohio cruise missile launchers?
          4. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 11 March 2016 21: 07
            +22
            Quote: NordUral
            We cannot cut a single unit in such a world.
            The idea is very sound!
            BUT!!! How are you going to "charge" the ruzho !? Maybe you have two dozen heavy R-39 SLBMs hidden in your garden for such an occasion?
            As far as I know, Interfax on September 14.09.2012, 39 announced the destruction of the last P-XNUMX.
            But the fact that the case has not yet been touched is encouraging!
            Perhaps there is "our answer to Curzon" on the topic, for example, U-71 ...
            And why not?
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 12 March 2016 00: 39
              +4
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Perhaps there is "our answer to Curzon" on the topic, for example, U-71 ...
              And why not?

              A marine version of Sarmat has yet to be created, and this takes time ... But as a carrier of Status-6 or something similar and not with cobalt filling (that is, super torpedoes) it may well fit (dimensions allow). hi
          5. dmi.pris
            dmi.pris 11 March 2016 21: 18
            +19
            I hope that when the hunchback dies, the most terrible torments in hell await him ..
        4. Pereira
          Pereira 11 March 2016 21: 19
          +3
          I am begging you. How can you compare Dora and Katyusha? Why don't you compare Beaufors and TT?
        5. Alex777
          Alex777 11 March 2016 23: 28
          0
          The firing range of Dora and Katyush is not comparable even once. )
        6. vkfriendly
          vkfriendly 12 March 2016 04: 16
          +1
          Only this boat alone held the entire Pacific coast. Suppose that out of 200 charges, even half of the dummy would still incinerate the entire coast with a hundred atomic charges.
      2. demchuk.ig
        demchuk.ig 11 March 2016 19: 55
        -5
        Quote: MARK
        Russia won the war, simplicity, reliability and the power of weapons! We will strive for this ..

        Russia and the USSR won wars mainly with the blood of soldiers, and equipment is secondary! Strong soldiers are still needed, but extra-class iron is also very necessary! And such boats as pr.941 "Akula", probably no one will ever build! build! One "Shark" would not hurt to leave as a museum! You can not yourself, sell it to the Chinese!
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 11 March 2016 20: 27
          +5
          Quote: demchuk.ig
          You yourself can’t-sell to the Chinese!

          And they will start under the photocopier, rivet copies, and aim at Russia. Do you need it?
          1. avia1991
            avia1991 11 March 2016 23: 31
            0
            Quote: Nagan
            And they will start under the photocopier, rivet copies, and aim at Russia.

            Torment! Copy .. How many try to copy "Drying"? And nicherta doesn't work wassat
        2. n.kolesnichenko
          n.kolesnichenko 11 March 2016 21: 14
          +4
          Where do you get rockets from?
      3. Lieutenant Izhe
        Lieutenant Izhe 11 March 2016 19: 56
        +15
        These are COMBAT submarine missile platforms with EXCELLENT STRATEGIC potential, the development and production of which cost "a pretty penny"!
        Madame, you can do without daily personal care products, And ...
        Russia WILL NOT get worse from THIS (without them, you and I have managed for AGES! wink request ), but ..
        WITHOUT these components of the "nuclear triad" of Russia, soon you may not need gaskets at all!
        1. kolobok63
          kolobok63 11 March 2016 20: 28
          -11%
          Mr. Lieutenant, I agree with you, but do they really not see this in the Russian Federation? I think the article is fake! The people WILL NOT ALLOW !!! am Power is in the truth! hi
          1. Tambov Wolf
            Tambov Wolf 11 March 2016 22: 05
            +18
            This is whom and what people will not allow? The union has collapsed, the liberal riffraff is sitting upstairs, continuing the sale of the country, and where is the people so far? He’s stabbing in the field so as not to bend. Have the thieves stopped a lot of people? While this gang has a roof at the top, people will sniff into a rag.
        2. Revolver
          Revolver 11 March 2016 20: 49
          +3
          Quote: Lieutenant Izhe
          Madame, you can do without daily personal care products, And ...
          Russia WILL NOT get worse from THIS (without them, you and I have managed for AGES!
          ...
          soon you may not need gaskets at all!

          Mr. Lieutenant
          Kindly express your point of view to your spouse and daughters. There is a chance that after this same-sex marriage belay You will find an alternative worthy of careful consideration. lol
          This is of course if you have a spouse and daughters of the appropriate age. And if not, then with this approach it’s better not to start. No.
          hi
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. kuz363
        kuz363 11 March 2016 20: 21
        +2
        And you can throw bast shoes.
        1. kolobok63
          kolobok63 11 March 2016 20: 29
          0
          Whom, if not a secret? hi
        2. Passer
          Passer 11 March 2016 21: 41
          +1
          Quote: kuz363
          And you can throw bast shoes.

          Option: shank cuttings.
      6. SmacXnumx
        SmacXnumx 11 March 2016 20: 51
        +1
        For 13 years, 6 giants is not a bad result at all
    2. Jerusalem artichoke
      Jerusalem artichoke 11 March 2016 18: 55
      +9
      Quote: Bacha
      Something tells me that under the current situation in the world, ours will not do it in vain, the giant is apparently morally completely out of date.

      Mariners-submariners called the submarines of this project water carriers. To submerge, these submarines took on board the largest volumes of sea water in tanks. What should I do? For THIS, we should all thank the labeled, this is his doing. And the collapse of the USSR, and the destruction of these nuclear submarines, since the signed treaty signed makes them toothless.
      1. ARS56
        ARS56 11 March 2016 19: 08
        +33
        Americans violate any contract that becomes unprofitable for them. Could, in this case, take an example from the Americans, and not destroy the carriers of excellent missiles, for a military start which does not require access to the sea of ​​this somewhat outdated giant.
        1. your1970
          your1970 11 March 2016 19: 12
          +5
          "The Americans violate any agreement that becomes unprofitable for them. In this case, they could take an example from the ovs, and not destroy Carriers excellent and modern missiles, for a combat launch which does not require the entry to the sea of ​​this somewhat outdated giant "
          Physically unable to wear modern missiles this to say the least obsolete ship (40 years !! designed for completely different missiles in principle)
          1. dyksi
            dyksi 11 March 2016 19: 20
            +26
            These boats can be made carriers of the darkness of cruise missiles, as mattresses actually did, since these boats are huge both with us and with Amers, so placing packages of these missiles on them is not a problem. But judging by today's news on our site, they can either destroy or sell.
            1. kolyhalovs
              kolyhalovs 11 March 2016 20: 08
              +5
              Quote: dyksi
              These boats can be made carriers of the darkness of cruise missiles

              You can teach a hare to smoke. But why? Now is not the 90s, when they just cut, cut, cut. Now something is being built, something is being modernized. If it was decided to be scrapped, then there are no adequate rework options for it.
              1. Lieutenant Izhe
                Lieutenant Izhe 11 March 2016 20: 19
                +1
                Unless this TYPE of missiles for SSBNs is no longer in service, OR ... "other"
                1. kapitan92
                  kapitan92 11 March 2016 20: 41
                  +9
                  Quote: Lieutenant Izhe
                  Unless this TYPE of missiles for SSBNs is no longer in service, OR ... "other"

                  The RSM 52 or P 39 missiles are retired. Adopted in 1984. The missile was the second Soviet submarine solid-propellant rocket and the first production one. The first steps were made at the Ukrainian enterprise Yuzhmash. A total of 120 missiles were deployed (6 carriers of 20 missiles each). In 1999, a decision was made to replace this class of missiles with the Bulava missile system.
            2. Talgat
              Talgat 11 March 2016 20: 09
              +7
              I agree. sorry for the labor spent on the creation of these boats. One of the many consequences of the betrayal of the Gorbachev Yeltsins and their teams

              On the other hand, since the contract now needs to be reduced, it’s better to use them anyway; now it’s already problematic to use them. But not really standing on duty BDRMy and the new Boreas. Maybe. even without a contract - by this time I would have to abandon the exploitation of these giants
            3. Jerusalem artichoke
              Jerusalem artichoke 11 March 2016 20: 29
              -1
              Quote: dyksi
              These boats can be made carriers of the darkness of cruise missiles, as mattresses actually did, since these boats are huge both with us and with the Amers, the placement of packages of these missiles on them is not a problem. But judging by today's news on our site, they can either destroy or sell.

              You can’t do that.
              Yes, our novos are being built for new missiles.
          2. Vita vko
            Vita vko 11 March 2016 19: 31
            +7
            Most likely the deal is not a START treaty. The installation of plugs, instead of dismantling the submarine, suggests that this unique submarine will still serve. Obviously, the next step will be its modernization.
          3. demchuk.ig
            demchuk.ig 11 March 2016 20: 09
            +3
            Quote: your1970
            "The Americans violate any agreement that becomes unprofitable for them. In this case, they could take an example from the ovs, and not destroy Carriers excellent and modern missiles, for a combat launch which does not require the entry to the sea of ​​this somewhat outdated giant "
            Physically unable to wear modern missiles this to say the least obsolete ship (40 years !! designed for completely different missiles in principle)

            Under Commander-in-Chief Vysotsky, it was infa that three boats would be used as launchers, but I didn't hear anything else. And on account of the fact that he could not use other missiles, he was carrying a "mace", even though in the same mine.
          4. avia1991
            avia1991 11 March 2016 23: 34
            +1
            Quote: your1970
            Physically, this missile, to say the least, can not carry modern rockets (40 years !! designed for completely different rockets in principle)

            In this case, "White Swans" must also be scrapped! However, they are going to be modernized ..
          5. NEXUS
            NEXUS 12 March 2016 00: 44
            +3
            Quote: your1970
            Physically, this missile, to say the least, can not carry modern rockets (40 years !! designed for completely different rockets in principle)

            It is, of course, the same way as the carrier of new missiles can be redundant and time-consuming, but as a carrier of super torpedoes with nuclear warheads like Status-6, I think I can remodel this device quickly and not expensively. declare. hi
        2. Jerusalem artichoke
          Jerusalem artichoke 11 March 2016 19: 31
          +7
          Quote: ARS56
          Could in this case take an example from the Americans, and not destroy the carriers of excellent missiles

          These missiles came under contract. Hence, the carriers, respectively, remained out of business request
          Converting them to other missiles is harder and more expensive than building the latest submarine with the latest missiles and with the possibility of further modernization.
          In general, everything came up against missiles that were specially created for these nuclear submarines, and nuclear submarines were created specifically for these world's largest underwater ballistic missiles. That's it..
          1. Jerusalem artichoke
            Jerusalem artichoke 11 March 2016 20: 10
            -1
            And what is minus that? What do you disagree with?
            1. Ami du peuple
              Ami du peuple 11 March 2016 20: 32
              +12
              Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
              And what is minus that? What do you disagree with?

              Plusanul you. But understand, it is difficult for the people to accept the fact that the world's largest nuclear submarines are being pins and needles. But no one takes into account that the average service life of such submarines is 30 years and the maintenance of such monsters is expensive, and their modernization is not very cheap. Very very ..
              But one of the "Sharks" should be left as evidence of the greatest design genius and industrial power of the Soviet era. In order to have someone to look up to, in order to remember that not iPhones with iPads are the pinnacle of technological progress.
            2. kolobok63
              kolobok63 11 March 2016 20: 36
              +3
              I think that fools are not sitting in the design bureau. Such a project is calculated 100%, the reserve of this type of submarines is huge! If our bureaucrats were tried as a result of such disgrace, as enemies of the people! hi
              1. avia1991
                avia1991 11 March 2016 23: 42
                0
                Quote: kolobok63
                the reserve of this type of submarine is huge!

                In - for sure! good
                And we have just "Status-6" on the way .. why not start transporting these monsters to such a submarine? The dimensions really fit .. wink
          2. Nick
            Nick 11 March 2016 20: 20
            +2
            Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
            In general, everything came up against missiles that were specially created for these nuclear submarines, and nuclear submarines were created specifically for these world's largest underwater ballistic missiles. That's it..

            And they are noisy by today's standards.
            1. Jerusalem artichoke
              Jerusalem artichoke 11 March 2016 20: 30
              0
              Quote: Nick
              Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
              In general, everything came up against missiles that were specially created for these nuclear submarines, and nuclear submarines were created specifically for these world's largest underwater ballistic missiles. That's it..

              And they are noisy by today's standards.

              That is yes. I think our novies are quietly building, and rightly so.
        3. tol100v
          tol100v 11 March 2016 20: 28
          0
          Quote: ARS56
          , for a military launch which does not require access to the sea of ​​this somewhat outdated giant.

          And install the plugs with Velcro without removing the missiles from combat duty!
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 11 March 2016 22: 10
            +3
            Quote: Tol100v
            And install the plugs with Velcro without removing the missiles from combat duty!

            Sorry, what kind of missiles are you talking about?
            Tell me, plz, what did you secretly put there from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and the GOU General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation? belay
      2. jktu66
        jktu66 11 March 2016 19: 09
        +25
        We are stubs on the GRK, and they are thermonuclear modernized bombs to our borders, probably also under a treaty limiting the strategic offensive arms
        1. Jerusalem artichoke
          Jerusalem artichoke 11 March 2016 19: 42
          -13%
          Quote: jktu66
          We are stubs on the GRK, and they are thermonuclear modernized bombs to our borders, probably also under a treaty limiting the strategic offensive arms

          Nothing is nothing! They were also not aware that our "Calibers" fly at 4000 km! And "Caliber" can carry special warheads. And the newest diesel-electric submarines for "Caliber" on the Black Sea Fleet are already FIVE. And each carries 4 "Caliber" underwater basing. Plus the new RTOs and "Admiral Grigorovich" are from the novya that carries the "Caliber". Well, let's not forget our glorious Flagman-Guards Strike Missile Cruiser "Moskva" with 16 supersonic anti-ship missiles P-1000 (they can also carry special warheads). And I have not listed everything yet, even from the ship crew of the Black Sea Fleet ...
          1. kuz363
            kuz363 11 March 2016 20: 31
            0
            Does it seem to you anyway how far the replaced missiles flew, the speed of the missiles and the number of warheads? Gauges will not replace them at all. And about the old junk cruiser Moscow of the USSR, even talking funny. And the Black Sea crew is suitable only for scrap.
            1. serezhasoldatow
              serezhasoldatow 11 March 2016 22: 12
              +5
              What do you let people into scrap metal? If you are at odds with the Russian language, then first to the dictionary. The crew are the people who control the iron.
            2. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 11 March 2016 22: 33
              +5
              Quote: kuz363
              And about the old junk cruiser Moscow of the USSR, even talking funny. And the Black Sea crew is suitable only for scrap.
              Waldemar, your comment is somewhat "tactless" in relation to the ship and the "crew" (these are people, not iron - watercraft), which you are going to "hand over for scrap".
              To go to sea on "old junk" is a daily feat of the crew. The sea does not forgive mistakes, therefore it is necessary to keep "this junk" as it was always done in the "Royal Navy". We, northerners, were always amazed at the cleanliness, order, and pedantry with which this was done! And the merit is, in my opinion, in junior commanders and the professionalism of warrant officers.
              This is true, by the way. Therefore, I gave you a "-", with full awareness for what!
          2. gispanec
            gispanec 12 March 2016 20: 57
            0
            Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
            And the newest diesel-electric submarines for "Caliber" on the Black Sea Fleet are already FIVE.

            fool sovsen flew off the coils ??? ... list 5 submarines as part of the Black Sea Fleet !! ... and the newest ... with weapons under the caliber negative
            Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
            And I haven’t listed everything even from the crew of the Black Sea Fleet ..

            judging by koment you do not even know how to use the Internet ... at least you taught the materiel ... skr not even at the Black Sea Fleet and when will it go there? ... maybe tomorrow, or maybe in the summer ... Moscow .. hmm ... you know what is now with her? no, why write ... ??
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 March 2016 19: 21
        +6
        Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
        For THIS, we should all thank the labeled, this is his doing. And the collapse of the USSR, and the destruction of these nuclear submarines, since the signed treaty signed makes them toothless.

        In fact, the collapse of the USSR made them toothless. Because the SLBMs of pr. 941 were tied to Yuzhmash. And the available missiles were rotten by the beginning of the 2000s.
        In addition, the available R-39 / R-39U did not suit the military according to the technical specifications and were adopted only because otherwise the already built SSBNs would have remained without missiles. Makeevtsy pledged to bring the performance characteristics to those required in the statement of work, but the USSR collapsed and the R-39UTTX died before it was born.
        1. PSih2097
          PSih2097 11 March 2016 19: 55
          +7
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Actually, the collapse of the USSR made them toothless. Because SLBM pr. 941 were tied to Yuzhmash. And the available missiles were rotten by the beginning of the 2000s.

          not SLBMs, but TRPKSN ...
          Chukhnu say, boats were built under developed missiles, and not vice versa.
          The R-39utth "Bark" was made by the Makeevites (Sineva and Liner were also their project), but the development did not work out, the project was closed by 80% (full-scale tests) of readiness, the Americans probably tried to scrapped both the BZHRK and "Sharks" ...
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 14 March 2016 19: 23
            0
            Quote: PSih2097
            not SLBMs, but TRPKSN ...

            I was talking specifically about SLBMs - missiles for the 941th SSBN project.
            Quote: PSih2097
            Chukhnu say, boats were built under developed missiles, and not vice versa.

            Boats were built for missiles, in which completely different specifications were registered in the TK. And Makeevtsy, rushing with a universal BR for mines and submarines, as a result issued a 90-ton SLBM with a range that did not suit even the fleet. And the fleet was forced to accept this missile only because the lead project-based SSBN 941 was already built and went into operation at the end of 1981 without SLBMs adopted for service.
            Quote: PSih2097
            The R-39utth "Bark" was made by the Makeevites (Sineva and Liner were also their project), but the development did not work out, the project was closed by 80% (full-scale tests) of readiness, the Americans probably tried to scrapped both the BZHRK and "Sharks" ...

            EMNIP, as a result of the tests of the "Bark", the stand in Nyonoksa was destroyed by a direct hit from an SLBM.
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 11 March 2016 22: 56
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Makeevtsy pledged to bring TTX to the required specifications, but the USSR collapsed and the R-39UTTX died and was not born.

          To be more precise, its prototype was "made", but did not pass the test and therefore was not adopted for service.
          R-39UTTKh / 3M91 / OKR "Bark", the D-19UTTKh complex - a project of modernization of a completely Russian-made rocket for the rearmament of Project 941 TRPKSN and armament of the Borey SSBN. Development ceased in 1997 after three unsuccessful launches.
      4. renics
        renics 11 March 2016 19: 29
        -3
        You incorrectly give the characteristics of this submarine, sea water is not intended for immersion. To do this, in modern nuclear submarines, this role is played by horizontal rudders, and not ballast tanks with sea water - this remains in history. But what is sea water used for? The novelty of the development, in the short time of creation, the traditional disregard for the development of a stationary basing system in the Navy of the USSR (the requirement of obtaining a minimum draft in the surface for entry into existing bases, instead of building new ones, as was done in the USA for SSBN Ohio, led to the need for a huge the buoyancy reserve and the enormous mass of new ICBMs (almost 2.5 times larger than the RSM-50) led to truly fantastic solutions, which ultimately yielded a huge displacement exceeding all reasonable limits.It is enough to say that the total underwater displacement - about 50000 tons exceeds that of the carrier Admiral Gorshkov, and exactly half of this weight is ballast water, which is why the boat was sarcastically dubbed a water carrier, which is the price of transferring liquid fuel to solid to ICBMs not completely thought out for the Russian fleet. As a result, Shark became the largest submarine in the world (listed as a Guinness Book of Records). of these ships, a new workshop was specially built on the NSR - the largest indoor boathouse in the world. The main reason was the difficulty in organizing the deployment of such large submarines armed with no less “impressive” missiles. Sharks simply couldn’t enter most of the existing basing points because of their tightness. more details: http://www.deepstorm.ru/DeepStorm.files/45-92/nbrs/941/list.htm
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 March 2016 19: 37
          +11
          Quote: renics
          You incorrectly give the characteristics of this submarine, sea water is not intended for immersion. For this, in modern nuclear submarines this role is played by horizontal rudders, and not ballast tanks with seawater - this remains in history.

          Quote: renics
          Suffice it to say that the total underwater displacement of about 50000 tons exceeds that of the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov. Moreover exactly half that weight is ballast water, because of which the boat; sarcastically dubbed a water carrier.

          Bravo! - mutually exclusive sentences in one paragraph! smile
          1. renics
            renics 11 March 2016 19: 44
            -12%
            What bravo? You follow the link, and read the full reason why you need overboard water in this submarine, and do not clown around here. When I was still practicing at the mailbox where they built it, I asked the specialists who were there when I was young and saw huge titanium horizontal rudders for nuclear submarines. Why are they needed for diving? After all, you need overboard water, not rudders. I was told that this technology is a thing of the past for modern submarines using horizontal rudders for diving. And it is used by the Americans. And if you can’t understand from my short essay, then read the full article here.
            1. dvina71
              dvina71 11 March 2016 19: 53
              +6
              Quote: renics
              . Why are they needed for immersion? After all, outboard water is needed, not rudders. I was told that this technology is a thing of the past for modern submarines using horizontal rudders for diving.


              How can rudders affect the Law of Archimedes ..?
              1. renics
                renics 11 March 2016 19: 55
                -8
                If you don’t know then turn to physics, to the section on hydrodynamics. And what were you doing at the physics lessons at school, apparently you were driving games on your tablet or phone.
                1. dvina71
                  dvina71 11 March 2016 20: 17
                  +11
                  Quote: renics
                  If you don’t know then turn to physics, to the section on hydrodynamics

                  Victim of the exam?
                  Hydrodynamics -

                  Hydrodynamics is a section of hydraulics that studies the laws of motion of an incompressible fluid and its interaction with fixed and moving surfaces. From the point of view of mechanics, a fluid is a substance that has no tangential stresses in equilibrium.


                  The key word is the laws of motion. And when the boat does not move in the water, what keeps it from sinking or floating?
                2. Mister22408
                  Mister22408 11 March 2016 20: 40
                  0
                  You are still here about the leveling wheel tell a secret ... fellow
              2. kuz363
                kuz363 11 March 2016 20: 35
                0
                If the boat does not move, then it will not be able to sink with the help of rudders and will become a target?
            2. Warrior Hamilton
              Warrior Hamilton 11 March 2016 21: 21
              +6
              In order to be at a depth and not to surface or sink, the ship (submarine) must have "zero buoyancy". In order to emerge, "positive buoyancy", and dive, "negative buoyancy". All this is done using ballast and leveling and trim tanks and seawater. The rudders help to stabilize the processes of diving, ascent and control of the ship on the move and when it is necessary to take action quickly. Somewhere like that ...
        2. Exsubmariner
          Exsubmariner 11 March 2016 19: 37
          +6
          This TRPKSN is a double-hull, the Central City Hospital is available, but there are also tanks that were drained for safe entry into the North-Dvinsky Canal on the NSR. When this ship was in the base, they were indeed filled with water. We used to joke that the RTMK could hand over the second task at the Akula Central City Hospital.
          1. Warrior Hamilton
            Warrior Hamilton 11 March 2016 21: 38
            0
            In 1977, they received their boat in Severodvinsk and everyone tried to be at the open (if lucky) gates of the "workshop" where the "Shark" was built I really wanted to look at it ...
        3. Jerusalem artichoke
          Jerusalem artichoke 11 March 2016 20: 33
          -1
          Quote: renics
          You incorrectly give the characteristics of this submarine, sea water is not intended for immersion. For this, in modern nuclear submarines this role is played by horizontal rudders,

          Apparently, they are not familiar with hydrodynamics. Well, try installing horizontal rudders on a balloon. Can he dive and stay at a given depth?
          1. Warrior Hamilton
            Warrior Hamilton 11 March 2016 22: 13
            +2
            Hydrodynamics is a vast science, of course, but the Archimedes law applies to Hydrostatics, if not.
      5. PSih2097
        PSih2097 11 March 2016 19: 49
        -1
        Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
        the Ahriman submariners called the submarines of this project water carriers. To submerge, these submarines took on board the largest volumes of sea water in tanks.

        the boats of this project break through such a thickness of ice that your boreas with dolphins never dreamed of, plus 20 sea-based Satan missiles (aka Voevoda) ...
        1. Warrior Hamilton
          Warrior Hamilton 12 March 2016 12: 05
          +1
          In fact, they are looking for wormwood or or they destroy the ice with special means to perform a combat mission. Maybe they break open ice 0,6-0,8 meters. Breaking of ice by the ship's hull is fraught with disabling and destruction of the ship's retractable systems and hydroacoustic equipment, violation of the tightness of the hull and missile shaft covers, so that "the boats of this project break through such a thickness of ice that your boreas with dolphins never dreamed of" - this is more and more from works of Tom Clancy (land him ......) laughing
      6. Wheel
        Wheel 11 March 2016 21: 27
        +1
        Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
        since a signed contract makes them toothless.

        It’s nothing that START-3 was signed in 2010, and on February 5, 2011 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exchanged ratifications of the treaty during the 47th Munich Security Conference, after which it formally entered into force .?
    3. 79807420129
      79807420129 11 March 2016 18: 56
      +28
      Quote: Bacha
      Something tells me that under the current situation in the world, ours will not do it in vain, the giant is apparently morally completely out of date.

      It may be outdated, but given the current situation in the world, Russian Helicopters are being privatized, they want to sell three frigates, optimize the defense budget, the impression is whether it is peace and quiet in the world, but God's grace, Russia is probably surrounded by investors with investments in their beak, and not enemies, but the oil rose uryayayayaya, ugh what a day it is today.
      1. Armored optimist
        Armored optimist 11 March 2016 19: 05
        -8
        What to do? The contract must be implemented, we are not Murakans. In addition, the stubs on this ship, apparently, will allow the commissioning of some other media.
        1. Wheel
          Wheel 11 March 2016 21: 33
          +1
          Quote: armored optimist
          In addition, the stubs on this ship, apparently, will allow the commissioning of some other media.

          The reserve for carriers of the Russian Federation is available, and not small.
      2. Dym71
        Dym71 11 March 2016 19: 08
        +9
        Quote: 79807420129
        pah, what a day it is today.


        And here's what: exactly 31 years ago, the Plenum unanimously elected M. S. Gorbachev as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.
        1. weksha50
          weksha50 11 March 2016 19: 20
          +5
          Quote: Dym71
          Quote: 79807420129
          pah, what a day it is today.

          And here's what: exactly 31 years ago, the Plenum unanimously elected M. S. Gorbachev as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.



          Ugh !!!
          By night, they took and mentioned this demon ...

          PS That would be someone drown something, brew ... without any contracts ...
          1. Dym71
            Dym71 11 March 2016 22: 01
            +1
            Quote: weksha50
            Ugh !!!
            By night, they took and mentioned this demon ...


            So you can’t throw words out of a song, don’t request
            Please accept as a compensation an anecdote, at that time political winked
            A man comes to the railway ticket office.
            - Give me one ticket to Gorbachevsk.
            Cashier, scrolling through the entire directory:
            - Mercy, there is no such city.
            - Ah, sorry! I, probably, at the preliminary cash desk.
        2. 79807420129
          79807420129 11 March 2016 19: 23
          +7
          Quote: Dym71
          Quote: 79807420129
          pah, what a day it is today.


          And here's what: exactly 31 years ago, the Plenum unanimously elected M. S. Gorbachev as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.

          This is the legacy of the "great" deeds of the marked. Thank you, I forgot that on March 10, 1985, Chernenko.K.U. died, and a crooked clan slope rushed. hi
        3. Armored optimist
          Armored optimist 11 March 2016 19: 47
          +1
          Usually I am indifferent to minusers. But today, only the rules of the forum do not allow me to speak about their mental abilities.
          Well, what do your minuses mean?
          Do not like Gorbachev and the contract? What am I doing? Contracts must be implemented, however.
          I consider every minus from the reward a reward. Proceed.
          1. 79807420129
            79807420129 11 March 2016 20: 16
            +9
            Quote: armored optimist
            Usually I am indifferent to minusers. But today, only the rules of the forum do not allow me to speak about their mental abilities.
            Well, what do your minuses mean?
            Do not like Gorbachev and the contract? What am I doing? Contracts must be implemented, however.
            I consider every minus from the reward a reward. Proceed.

            The armor optimist, believe it or not, didn’t minus you, but on the contrary he didn’t plus you, and for that I don’t know you are minus. And as for the agreements, well, myrikosy themselves do them, I don't think.
            1. Armored optimist
              Armored optimist 11 March 2016 20: 18
              +1
              We must not act as vile as they are. And usually minus the emotions, not having time to figure it out.
              1. 79807420129
                79807420129 11 March 2016 20: 28
                +7
                Quote: armored optimist
                We must not act as vile as they are. And usually minus the emotions, not having time to figure it out.

                So we have in VO and another article without reading and not understanding the essence of the comment already scribbling.
              2. midivan
                midivan 11 March 2016 22: 29
                +5
                Quote: armored optimist
                We must not act as vile as they are. And usually minus the emotions, not having time to figure it out.

                it’s as if it’s not worth dropping, but!
                1. midivan
                  midivan 11 March 2016 22: 47
                  +2
                  also very suitable in politics from the usa
          2. kuz363
            kuz363 11 March 2016 20: 37
            -1
            Contracts are optional. For example, the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty. But Russia, as it were, did not come out. So what?
      3. smershxnumx
        smershxnumx 11 March 2016 19: 25
        +4
        Yes, I got a little freaked out by such news today, I was especially surprised by the decision to privatize Russian Helicopters ... It's not good ... IMHO ... hi
    4. Wiruz
      Wiruz 11 March 2016 19: 08
      0
      Just do not need to raise a panic here now, yell that everything has disappeared, that power is ruining the nuclear shield and so on and so forth and so forth! stop
      1. MARK
        MARK 11 March 2016 19: 10
        -1
        Quote: Wiruz
        Just do not need to raise a panic here now, yell that everything has disappeared, that power is ruining the nuclear shield and so on and so forth and so forth! stop

        Yes, let them squeal ... Our business is just! Everything is going according to plan ..
        1. Wheel
          Wheel 11 March 2016 21: 35
          +2
          Quote: MARK
          Yes, let them squeal ... Our business is just! Everything is going according to plan ..

          Yeah, they forgot to add "Uryayayaya !!!" and "Glory to Putin!"
      2. Michael67
        Michael67 11 March 2016 19: 18
        +2
        Any message in which I hear the words "In accordance with the reduction agreement ..., ... concluded between the US and the Russian Federation" I curse. First of all, I curse that tagged bastard with his singing along (like Mr. "Yes") and the rest of the abomination with the ideas of shock therapy and free markets. We burst the consequences of the activities of these reptiles.
        Here's what you always need to remember - stubs in mines. Even if they nah..fig (these mines) no one needs. The very fact of the sale of the interests of the motherland by a bunch of scum to our enemies. And swear to yourself that more of this is not permissible.
    5. donavi49
      donavi49 11 March 2016 19: 09
      +16
      So there are no rockets.

      The R-39 has an 10 summer service life - the last missiles are rotten in the 00's. It seems like they were officially disposed of with American money by the 10-12 year. In any case, they are not combat ready. The only manufacturer of Dnepropetrovsk missiles, while the assembly shop was liquidated in the middle of the 90.

      There was a project for re-equipment under the Mace by installing a smaller glass and adopting additional ballast, but as a result, almost a new Borey for money came out with mandatory capital.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 11 March 2016 19: 25
        -3
        Quote: donavi49
        R-39 has a 10 year service life -

        What are you, no more than five. If it weren’t for the Americans, what would we do with them, with non-combat-ready, and even nuclear? Some kind of nightmare, it seems that Canadians signed there, and they have to be thanked.
        The Russian Navy has spent so much money on these useless nuclear submarines, now this time even smart people have come to power.
    6. Thronekeeper
      Thronekeeper 11 March 2016 19: 13
      +2
      No, not a pity, as a monument. But the ave. "Shark" place next to the LC "Iowa" and the BR "Yamato".
      It was a ship of prestige, a demonstration of the flag.
      R-39 is practically the 36th SotON voevodovna "overwhelmed". Given that the missile defense system is practically invulnerable at the level of an on-site missile defense system, provided with blocks of "mines" with shock cores (SPE), in fact - a mine "Arena" or "Afghanit", missiles, etc., and at the same time has a pair of control points and 5 silos, then APRKSN is 20 eggs in one basket for one Sivulva torpedo. The titanium hull-catamaran is interesting engineering, but how much of this titanium could the Mi-24 be molded or the MiG-31, or the hulls of the same Voevod? And for the price - one Typhoon - two Kuzi.
      Making "Sharks" with a pin - well, at least they put three in a mine :) - this is a rape of the project, but in fact - a laboratory for testing the enta of the "Bulava" itself.
      I'm sorry for the "voivode", yes, especially with the MIRV "Spit", however, because of the number of BB on the MIRV, it still gets cut off.
      And "Shark" is a monument of technical thought.
      "Severodvinsk" which pair will be enough for Kosheristan or Sodomite Sheep, or to introduce the 6th fleet with "Tytenik" - it is more appropriate geopolitically. We need to focus on winning the conventional war with PendoSStan, and not on who dies first and who dies second in a nuclear war.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 March 2016 19: 26
        +2
        Quote: Thronekeeper
        R-39 is practically the 36th Sotona voevodovna "overwhelmed".

        So the unborn R-39UTTH - yes.
        But the P-39U that the fleet actually had is far from the Voevoda. Too short range and too long KVO.
        Alas, the first two approach to the shell Makeevtsy was screwed up (the fleet agreed to accept the R-39 only because the lead SSBN pr. 941 had already been accepted as part of the fleet without missiles for a year), and the third approach no longer had time or money - the USSR died.
      2. michell
        michell 11 March 2016 19: 41
        +8
        Quote: Thronekeeper
        R-39 is practically the 36th Sotona voevodovna "overwhelmed"

        What are you talking about, dear? RSM-52 - solid fuel, "Voevoda" - liquid fuel. Yes, and the weight characteristics are slightly (twice wink ) vary. Feel the difference.
        It was a ship of prestige, a demonstration of the flag.

        A ship of prestige and a display of the flag is something that is displayed openly and for show. Where rockets fly from under the ice is not a demonstration of prestige, this is the organization of the Stalin-Canada-Mexico Strait - this is why the 941 project was created, that is why its rockets were burned out at the plant - the developer (FNPC "Altai") on amerovskie money on the command of overseas puppeteers by our national traitors. And this happened, gentlemen officers, until the second half of the XNUMXs - sapenti sat hi .
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 12 March 2016 01: 11
          +1
          Quote: michell
          that is why his missiles were burned out at the plant - developer (Federal Research and Production Center "Altai")

          Well, not quite:
          - 1998 - in the Northern Fleet, a volley launch of 20 R-39 missiles with SSBNs pr.941 was made. But 78 solid rocket engines were burned at the factory.

          Quote: Alexey RA
          But the P-39U that the fleet actually had is far from the Voevoda. Too short range and too long KVO.

          Makeevtsy worked on improving their product:
          In May 1985, it was decided to modernize the R-39, according to which the R-39 was equipped with military equipment R-29RMU with low-power BB. A new algorithm for breeding warheads at individual aiming points in an arbitrary (free) zone was used, which made it possible to remove restrictions on a fixed breeding zone and increase the range of breeding of warheads at ranges less than the maximum. Measures were taken to increase the security of the optical sensors of the astrocorrection system from being blinded by space nuclear explosions while overcoming the potential missile defense system. Under the general guidance of V.P. Makeev, work was carried out to modernize the control system (chief designer N.A. Semikhatov), ​​command devices (chief designer V.P. Arefiev) and the astro-correction system (chief designer V.S. Kuzmin). As a result, a control system with an astro correction system was created, capable of restoring its working capacity a few seconds after the outbreak. In addition, the rocket was able to receive data from the GLONASS satellite navigation system, which allowed increase firing accuracy to the level of land-based silo-based ICBMs. The D-19U complex with R-39U missiles was put into service in January 1988.
          The range was established by a government decree: reduced from 10000 to 8300 km. At the same time, 10x200kt blocks were BO.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 12 March 2016 00: 28
        +2
        Quote: Thronekeeper
        R-39 is practically the 36th Sotona voevodovna "overwhelmed".

        Yeah, one liquid, the second - solid fuel. By weight, 2 times the difference, well, etc.
        Quote: Thronekeeper
        APRKSN - this is 20 eggs in one basket for one Sivulva torpedo.
        She is guarded by shock boats, she grazes in an air defense missile system, where Sivulf, by definition, will not climb.
    7. ava09
      ava09 11 March 2016 20: 11
      +4
      Quote: Bacha
      Something tells me that under the current situation in the world, ours will not do it in vain, the giant is apparently morally completely out of date.

      First you need to figure out - where are ours and where not ours. Something in the past 25 years I have lost confidence that in Russia our decisions ...
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 12 March 2016 01: 16
        -2
        Quote: ava09
        Something in the past 25 years I have lost confidence that in Russia our decisions ...

        And who are ours?
    8. Passer
      Passer 11 March 2016 21: 37
      +1
      Our response to the deployment of American atomic bombs in Europe?
    9. Koshak
      Koshak 11 March 2016 21: 51
      0
      Quote: Bacha
      Something tells me that under the current situation in the world, ours will not do it in vain, the giant is apparently morally completely out of date.

      Of course, I'm not a specialist in submarines, but tell me, do these plugs take a long time to remove?
    10. GYGOLA
      GYGOLA 11 March 2016 23: 35
      +1
      In accordance with the offensive arms reduction treaty (START)
      The contract, there is a contract. It is evidently found the least benefit in
      Nuclear submarine Arkhangelsk
    11. marlin1203
      marlin1203 12 March 2016 00: 06
      +1
      The stub should be technologically kicked off with a launch rocket! .. laughing
      1. GYGOLA
        GYGOLA 12 March 2016 00: 16
        0
        Sorry friend laughter did not immediately notice wassat
      2. GYGOLA
        GYGOLA 12 March 2016 00: 36
        0
        Sorry friend! Laughter did not immediately notice smile I almost described ...
    12. guzik007
      guzik007 12 March 2016 09: 00
      -1
      the giant is apparently morally completely out of date.
      --------------------------------------
      A "morally obsolete giant" could easily have shot without leaving the pier.
      I don’t like it. We have so many submarines.
  2. lelikas
    lelikas 11 March 2016 18: 47
    +14
    In total, 6 such submarines (1076-1989) were built at Sevmash enterprise. Harsh deadlines! :)
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 11 March 2016 18: 56
      +10
      Quote: lelikas
      6 such submarines (1076-1989). Harsh deadlines! :)

      Izyaslav Yaroslavich started, and Moisha Gorbato-labeled finished. 150 years on one submarine ... Well, damn it, it’s unfinished, probably again the Mongol-Tatars prevented ...
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 11 March 2016 19: 28
      +3
      Quote: lelikas
      In total, 6 such submarines (1076-1989) were built at Sevmash enterprise. Harsh deadlines! :)

      Yes, inferior to the Americans, for 913 years only six boats, ashamed comrades.
      1. family tree
        family tree 12 March 2016 00: 43
        -1
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        Yes, inferior to the Americans, for 913 years only six boats, ashamed comrades.

        1076g what
        And then we give way belay It turns out that they have not heard about America yet, and we, although the USSR did not exist, already had a submarine, and the largest nuclear submarines were built wassat
        And someone about "pidvodny chavny" interprets laughing
  3. HAM
    HAM 11 March 2016 18: 47
    +2
    Again the same rake !?
  4. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 11 March 2016 18: 49
    +1
    But at least they will not be disposed of. Although they will announce a tender and Khan!
  5. izya top
    izya top 11 March 2016 18: 49
    +7
    fuck No. ---------------------
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 11 March 2016 19: 29
      -1
      Quote: izya top
      fuck

      In what sense?
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 11 March 2016 20: 45
      +2
      Instead of recycling, they would have made a museum - there would be no end from tourists.
      1. Dym71
        Dym71 11 March 2016 22: 45
        +2
        Quote: Vadim237
        Instead of recycling, they would have made a museum - there would be no end from tourists.


        + You, the idea is sound, and even if the museum is operational, one in Cuba, the second in Venezuela, the third for Mexicans to attach! winked
  6. 31rus2
    31rus2 11 March 2016 18: 49
    +5
    Dear ones not in the subject, but to remake it for another weapon, the same "Caliber", PCR, make it a multipurpose or special carrier, why is it not worth cutting it right away?
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 11 March 2016 18: 52
      +1
      Quote: 31rus2
      Dear ones not in the subject, but to remake it for another weapon, the same "Caliber", PCR, make it a multipurpose or special carrier, why is it not worth cutting it right away?

      Alas - the biggest, not always the best. Though against their conclusion, but alas.
      1. cayman gene
        cayman gene 11 March 2016 19: 07
        +8
        Quote: lelikas
        Alas - the biggest, not always the best. Though against their conclusion, but alas.

        This is not the point, we are launching 20 ballistic missiles, but what do we get in return? what do our "favorite" western "partners" offer as an alternative from their partner side?
        1. dvina71
          dvina71 11 March 2016 19: 18
          +4
          Quote: Cayman Gena
          this is not the case, we are launching 20 ballistic missiles,

          WE are not outputting anything. With this, boats have long had no main caliber.
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 11 March 2016 19: 34
        -1
        Quote: lelikas
        Alas - the biggest, not always the best. Though against their conclusion, but alas.

        You, specialist, in general, what side to the pr.941 boats?
        1. lelikas
          lelikas 11 March 2016 21: 54
          0
          Quote: saturn.mmm

          You, specialist, in general, what side to the pr.941 boats?

          I can right, I can left, in every way I can. hi
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 12 March 2016 01: 21
            -1
            Quote: lelikas
            I can right, I can left, in every way I can.

            You can not.
            You are more likely to pr. 667BDRM whole body.
            1. lelikas
              lelikas 12 March 2016 13: 27
              +1
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              You are more likely to pr. 667BDRM whole body.

              It's not fair ! But yes, love for them is no secret! repeat
              PS - but this does not justify the designers of missiles who are not able to increase the range without leaving much of the dimensions, because of which, I had to do the biggest in the world.
              For a very long time, I tried to explain not to our brow, who began to dig up the topic of our boats - why we had done so many projects - well, it did not fit into his head, the unbridled flight of imagination of our designers.
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 13 March 2016 19: 45
                -1
                Quote: lelikas
                PS - but this does not justify the designers of missiles that are not able to increase the range without leaving much of the dimensions,

                So it applies to everyone, the Trident-2 Americans made significantly more than Trident-1 and the size of their second Trident was already creeping up to the R-39, only 2,5 meters lower in height, and their rocket flew almost two thousand less than P -39, if you install a full-fledged combat unit. If we examine everything in detail, it turns out that our engineers are not so backward, Ohio is not able to launch all of his missiles, only four, then the clatter begins, it is necessary to calm the boat, but there are 24 rockets on board, above the roof.
    2. Wiruz
      Wiruz 11 March 2016 19: 21
      +4
      Dear ones not in the subject, but to remake it for another weapon, the same "Caliber", PCR, make it a multipurpose or special carrier, why is it not worth cutting it right away?

      It will be easier to build a new submarine than to overhaul the old one, and even with the replacement of weapons request
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 11 March 2016 19: 59
        +3
        Quote: Wiruz
        It will be easier to build a new submarine than to overhaul the old one, and even with the replacement of weapons

        On the one hand, you are right ... the submarine has been in service for quite a long time. But on the other hand, they do not "saw" it, but only plugs are placed on the missile silos, which have long been out of date. Most likely, this submarine will be put into reserve until better times ...
    3. Dart2027
      Dart2027 11 March 2016 19: 33
      0
      Quote: 31rus2
      and remake for another weapon

      It is possible, but nowhere, everything is busy.
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 March 2016 19: 33
      +4
      Quote: 31rus2
      Dear ones not in the subject, but to remake it for another weapon, the same "Caliber", PCR, make it a multipurpose or special carrier, why is it not worth cutting it right away?

      It makes no sense to rebuild for new SLBMs - for this you need to "slaughter" one of the new "Boreyev" (money and plant capacity are not rubber), and at the exit to get an SSBN, which will last a maximum of 10 years.

      Under the CD, there is also no point in rebuilding. The fact is that the SSBN operates in remote and fairly safe positional areas where the probability of meeting with anti-aircraft defense forces is low. Therefore, huge sizes and low maneuverability are forgivable for him.
      The carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic (with a range of operation of the main weapon three to four times less than that of SLBMs) ​​are already operating in the open ocean - and they have pretty good chances to meet either ICAPL, or a patrol plane, or an anti-submarine group. And in this situation, the enormous size of pr. 941 will make the submarine a big target.

      It’s the same as making a front-line bomber from a strategist. smile
      1. kepmor
        kepmor 11 March 2016 22: 08
        -1
        You're right! TRPKSN pr.941 were a fairly large "hemorrhoids" for the SF.
        One operation to ensure access to the military service of this bridgeodon required the involvement of a huge number of PLPL, ships, aircraft, and even civilian transports and fishermen.
        In 1983 or 1984 (sorry, I don’t remember exactly), TK-11 could not secretly enter the BS for 3 weeks - almost the entire fleet was "on the ears", barely pushed out, but "with a tail."
        Submariners themselves did not really respect these water carriers, unlike 667bdrm!
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 14 March 2016 10: 05
          0
          Quote: kepmor
          In 1983 or 1984 (sorry, I don’t remember exactly), TK-11 could not secretly enter the BS for 3 weeks - almost the entire fleet was "on the ears", barely pushed out, but "with a tail."
          Submariners themselves did not really respect these water carriers, unlike 667bdrm!

          There wasn’t in nature a boat pr.941 called TK-11, by maneuverability 667 bdrm cow on ice compared to 941 projects.
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 12 March 2016 01: 29
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Therefore, huge sizes and low maneuverability are forgivable for him.

        You do not know anything about pr.941 but are trying to reason.
      3. Tektor
        Tektor 12 March 2016 18: 32
        0
        There are at least 2 tasks that these boats can solve.
        1. A minefield, which is extremely important.
        2. There is a place of 22 torpedoes 533 caliber, which can be occupied by the Caliber. Those. at gunpoint - the entire European part right from the pier ...
        Therefore, then they are cut into needles and in no hurry. And they’re doing it right.
  7. PKK
    PKK 11 March 2016 18: 50
    +6
    Offensive and annoying! The Greatest Boats! Thunderstorm of the Seas, Oceans and our Enemies. We will remember the Greatness of the Soviet Navy.
    1. kuz363
      kuz363 11 March 2016 20: 47
      +1
      What greatness? He never was after the Turkish wars in the 18th century. The Crimean War of 1854, Tsushima, the death of the Black Sea Fleet squadron in 1918, the locked fleets of the Baltic and the Black Sea in the Second World War, the sluggish activity of the Northern Fleet to escort convoys ... The true sea powers are the USA, Germany, England, Japan. And even France and Italy. That's who had great naval battles on all oceans and seas.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 15 March 2016 08: 53
        0
        Quote: kuz363
        True sea powers are the USA, Germany, England, Japan. And even France and Italy.

        Spain is forgotten.
        1. Generalissimo
          Generalissimo 17 March 2016 15: 29
          0
          Holland, Portugal, Turkey, Chinese junks of the Middle Ages ...
          http://warfiles.ru/show-111988-russkiy-flot-spas-armiyu-ssha-nesmotrya-ni-na-cht
          o.html
          Lunin, Marinesco, Kruzenshtern, Russian Pomors, Cossacks Dezhnev, the Cold War, and much more forgotten
  8. Berserks
    Berserks 11 March 2016 18: 50
    +6
    Why? They develop their missile defense, and the boats need to be disposed of? In my opinion it is necessary to terminate this agreement and not be limited in weapons
    1. your1970
      your1970 11 March 2016 19: 18
      +5
      Berserks
      Dissolve and do not be limited in weapons, no question. Only Trouble is one 40 reactor (!!!) years old ... Find the crew only and missiles cut into 90 ...
      And so practically the power ....
  9. midivan
    midivan 11 March 2016 18: 50
    +11
    I hope there will be covers under the caps smilewith amers honestly the same as with a sharpie to play cards am
    1. sabakina
      sabakina 11 March 2016 19: 18
      +4
      With a light movement of the hand, the plugs turn into caps? I would like to...
  10. valent45
    valent45 11 March 2016 18: 51
    +10
    Americans under the START treaty did not eliminate their nuclear warheads. Just stored.
    So maybe we also need to upgrade these submarines of Project 941U to the authorized weapons?
    Their disposal seems somewhat short-sighted.
    1. dvina71
      dvina71 11 March 2016 19: 23
      +4
      Quote: valent45
      So maybe we also need to upgrade these submarines of Project 941U to the authorized weapons?

      The NSR has five buildings in operation + TARK repair, the Asterisk is littered with orders .. Hindus do not know how to squeeze into a queue. So what? Shall we build new missile carriers and drums, the asterisk will eject carriers of real rockets from the workshops and begin to modernize these monsters without knowing how or without knowing why.
      Good idea .. scratch your faq ..
  11. Dr. Bormental
    Dr. Bormental 11 March 2016 18: 54
    +6
    "In total, 6 such submarines were built at Sevmash (1076-1989)" We have been building submarines for 900 years, it turns out. smile
  12. polite people
    polite people 11 March 2016 18: 54
    +2
    The Ministry of Defense knows that they are not doing it. No one to cry. Now a different level of technology.
  13. alfa19638
    alfa19638 11 March 2016 18: 57
    +2
    How many more will our liberal leaders look longingly and ingratiatingly at the reaction of the West and act carefully "if it didn't work out"
  14. V.ic
    V.ic 11 March 2016 18: 57
    +4
    Again / again do we have something for mattresses? Bullied reptiles!
    1. your1970
      your1970 11 March 2016 19: 19
      +2
      go serves on the nuclear submarine which 40 years-alga !!!! ...
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 11 March 2016 19: 56
        +1
        Quote: your1970
        go serves on the nuclear submarine which is 40 years old — alga!

        Ort'g-ka yoskenem! In two months I am "retired". And I will "lay down with the device" on the officials from the Ministry of Defense. But, "if the country calls for a campaign" / text "Farewell to a Slav" /, I'm ready to freeze a little in the trench in an embrace with an RPG-7.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 11 March 2016 20: 48
          0
          When firing gases from the nozzle of a grenade launcher, you will warm yourself.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  15. APASUS
    APASUS 11 March 2016 18: 59
    +3
    Equip torpedoes for special purposes, remake them into a mine layer, but just to a training center. There are a bunch of options, but I think the Americans will squeeze and even allocate grandmas to cut
    1. Izotovp
      Izotovp 11 March 2016 19: 03
      +2
      In the carrier of special submarines.
  16. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 11 March 2016 19: 00
    +5
    Who would have known if it is worth remaking them for the CD. And then the information was running that the reconstruction of such a submarine would be more expensive than the construction of a new "Borey" or "Ash". In general, it's a pity ... Such handsome men die ...
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 11 March 2016 19: 07
      +3
      Nothing, the Americans seem to have remade the Ohio four for the Tomahawk carriers. What prevents us from doing this? Is it cheaper to cut a ship than to refit it? With the same success it was possible to cut the "Nakhimov" - there too, some missile silos are exchanged for others. What is the difference? wink hi
      1. user1212
        user1212 11 March 2016 20: 08
        +2
        Quote: Rurikovich
        What prevents us from doing this?

        Reactor status, e.g.
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Is it cheaper to cut a ship than to convert?

        Cheaper new Borey build
  17. KOH
    KOH 11 March 2016 19: 03
    +12
    Here she is, baby ... Damn, what country was, such and boats ... are simply mesmerizing ...
    1. Izotovp
      Izotovp 11 March 2016 19: 14
      +3
      There was an Empire !!!
    2. kote119
      kote119 11 March 2016 19: 28
      +1
      this baby (TK-208 Dmitry Donskoy) is still on the move, Arkhangelsk, about 17 years old, is not running, standing alone with Severstal waiting for their fate.
  18. Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov 11 March 2016 19: 06
    +4
    And mattresses in return that will break their own?
    1. alexs1833
      alexs1833 11 March 2016 19: 13
      +3
      but they build on the contrary. something is inaudible, so that they break something at home.
    2. Dym71
      Dym71 11 March 2016 19: 15
      +2
      Quote: Dmitry Potapov
      And mattresses in return that will break their own?


      Obama's hand wink
    3. 79807420129
      79807420129 11 March 2016 19: 16
      +9
      Quote: Dmitry Potapov
      And mattresses in return that will break their own?

      They will carefully disassemble, store and, in case of a batch, they will reassemble in a new way.
    4. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 11 March 2016 19: 56
      +2
      Quote: Dmitry Potapov
      And mattresses in return that will break their own?

      Yes, to hell with them in the drawbar.
  19. TVM - 75
    TVM - 75 11 March 2016 19: 07
    +3
    Maybe this should have been done, but a bitter precipitate remains from the fact that the West constantly broadcasts - Russia should ..., Russia is obliged ... And our country does not give a decent answer and allows a pack of pro-Western mongrel to yap and vilify our the country!
  20. EvgNik
    EvgNik 11 March 2016 19: 09
    -1
    Breaking - not building. Like a sickle for manhood.
    1. your1970
      your1970 11 March 2016 19: 21
      +2
      40 YEAR - she worked out all the time, talking about alterations / improvements / sorry for the easy-to-serve who will go to the potential ....
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. MstislavHrabr
    MstislavHrabr 11 March 2016 19: 20
    +1
    It is high time to make a lordka with a set of "unmanned" scouts. Under it and remake ...
  25. 2s1122
    2s1122 11 March 2016 19: 21
    0
    It is all the same that during the robbery of his apartment voluntarily open the door of the apartment and give the criminal weapons.! I do not understand these contracts.
  26. TEA
    TEA 11 March 2016 19: 23
    +1
    Well, it's not a problem to remove the "plugs", as well as to restore the mines in the steppes ... And it's better to get closer in the sea-ocean and be on duty (just in case) We have all sorts of "tricky things" .. So, you can sleep well for now!
  27. KRIG55
    KRIG55 11 March 2016 19: 28
    0
    It’s unfortunate that these ships could force many to change diapers without going to sea. The unique brainchild of Kovalev.
  28. izya top
    izya top 11 March 2016 19: 29
    +2
    damn it, everyone is so smart, it’s better the new one, it’ll come out cheaper ... the case is unique, you can cram so much there.
  29. Exsubmariner
    Exsubmariner 11 March 2016 19: 30
    +1
    One of the unique projects of the nuclear submarine. It is a pity that they go to the "needles", but time takes its toll. It is a pity that during the service I did not manage to visit this ship.
  30. AlexTires
    AlexTires 11 March 2016 19: 32
    0
    Hmmm, we shout that it is necessary to strengthen the country's defense capability, and we are executing agreements that are aimed at the opposite ... it is clear that modernization for the Bulava would cost a penny, but there are other options for alteration in order to save the boat for the fleet ... not so It's a shame, it seems to me, it would have been already to sell it to the Indians, and even for this business to snatch a contract for modernization ... everything is better than cutting ...
  31. shans2
    shans2 11 March 2016 19: 39
    +2
    This submarine was generally prescribed for disposal, along with another one, what they began to do plugs, so they will not be disposed of, and then the money will appear, you look will be converted into special transport, or carrier cruise missiles, etc.
  32. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 11 March 2016 19: 41
    +2
    Yes, sorry, of course, this monster. But the missiles with which it had to be armed are no longer there (solid-fuel ones, by the way), and the reactors are in time - bye-bye, electronics of the "Stone Age" ... So, if you remake it for an underwater tanker or gas carrier - only, I'm afraid, this is an overwhelming utopia. So let yourself. Caps for the mines of non-existent missiles - also let them.
    1. MARK
      MARK 11 March 2016 19: 49
      +2
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Yes, sorry, of course, this monster. But the missiles with which it had to be armed are no longer there (solid-fuel ones, by the way), and the reactors are in time - bye-bye, electronics of the "Stone Age" ... So, if you remake it for an underwater tanker or gas carrier - only, I'm afraid, this is an overwhelming utopia. So let yourself. Caps for the mines of non-existent missiles - also let them.

      That's right ... There are simple and effective designs.! We need to strive for this .. Too alarming time, have imposed us seriously! hi
  33. msm
    msm 11 March 2016 19: 44
    0
    If you think about it ... multiply 20 missiles by 10 homing heads, total 200. One submarine is enough for the USA. Why break when there is no replacement? Someone here muttered around CALIBER. But the USA cannot be held back by them! Ah, this is real power. What, Taburetkin again in battle?
  34. salad
    salad 11 March 2016 19: 44
    +1
    I agree with the above, missiles, missiles, and the life of a reactor is another matter! And let the Americans stockpile the missiles, imagine if suddenly something will detonate this finish !!!
  35. Mareman Vasilich
    Mareman Vasilich 11 March 2016 19: 46
    -1
    "Is this stupidity or treason?" P.N. Milyukov 1.11.1916/XNUMX/XNUMX
  36. Kind angry
    Kind angry 11 March 2016 19: 46
    0
    And let's cut it all and give everything back!? They will attack us faster, kill another 30 mln people and maybe only then the Russian peasant will understand that he was sold a long time ago!? And maybe only then the Russian peasant will get up and finally pile on everyone and everything?
    Drank, disassembled and sold my homeland !!!!
  37. Damask
    Damask 11 March 2016 19: 57
    +1
    Just because they don’t take oaths of two and three, they don’t run from party to party
  38. mark_rod
    mark_rod 11 March 2016 19: 57
    +1
    What absolutely our rulers have been in! The situation in the world is just super peaceful, our country is kissed in every place! There are no words except mats !!!
  39. aviator_IAS
    aviator_IAS 11 March 2016 20: 06
    +2
    Such huge boats were not made from the good life. We just switched to easier-to-maintain solid-propellant missiles, and at first they turned out to be rather oversized. Now such a nuclear submarine is a place in the museum, tk. even the alteration under the "Bulava" was forced to at least somehow use this monster. In addition, one should not forget that the R-39 missiles were partially made at Yuzhmash and in the current conditions it is impossible to cooperate with it. It turns out one hell that the boat is without missiles. IMHO, it's better to build new Boreas, which are less noisy and much cheaper to maintain.
  40. ruskih
    ruskih 11 March 2016 20: 08
    +1
    [media = http: // https: //www.youtube.com/watch? v = zgeVz1wso0s]
    Video about the nuclear submarine. "The largest submarine in history. Typhoon."
  41. gammipapa
    gammipapa 11 March 2016 20: 08
    0
    So there are no enemies, brew all the hatches and into the scrap metal why good is to disappear. But swearing can not be understood.
  42. zoriprit
    zoriprit 11 March 2016 20: 09
    +1
    here, one smart person figured that if you place calibers (not forbidden) on the shark, then there will be 400 pieces of bk ... and if air defense systems ?? s-400 (500) the boats will have completely new qualities (and the possibility of an asymmetric response from Russia) surfaced somewhere near the ova air force base .. and that's it .. no plane will take off .. and with calibers - surfaced at the new.n- and blocked everything there ..
  43. kuz363
    kuz363 11 March 2016 20: 19
    +4
    Less such news. The United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty, and Russia scrupulously fulfills the START Treaty. Before whom are the high ranks of the state served?
  44. Nikodimov
    Nikodimov 11 March 2016 20: 23
    +2
    I don't understand colleagues who put minus / plus news. News - HERE HERE, even get your diaper dirty! Like you "for", like - "against", but it is.
  45. NordUral
    NordUral 11 March 2016 20: 31
    0
    And for whom are we trying?
  46. kote119
    kote119 11 March 2016 20: 48
    0
    Quote: Ami du peuple
    But one of the "Sharks" should be left as evidence of the greatest design genius and industrial power of the Soviet era.

    one is even on the go, and goes to sea (TK-208), by the way the very first in the series.
  47. April10
    April10 11 March 2016 20: 59
    0
    We bring nuclear bombs, tanks, etc. to Europe, and we brew mines, otherwise Gorbachev and Yeltsin did little !!!!!!!!!!!
  48. TsUS-Air Force
    TsUS-Air Force 11 March 2016 21: 03
    0
    maybe they are outdated in something, but it’s a shame that the boats, or rather the hulls, are still completely new ...
  49. egor1712
    egor1712 11 March 2016 21: 12
    +1
    Destroy the mind a lot is not necessary. Offer a bomber-missile carrier. Surfaced with missiles, for example, Caliber or some more, and hits in quantity (there is enough space in the boat) over the territory of a likely enemy. Yes, only the appearance of such a giant near foreign coasts will immediately solve a lot of problems.
  50. kmv.km
    kmv.km 11 March 2016 21: 30
    0
    Titanic, Unique project of the Soviet Navy!
    I think many people know from open sources
    and advantages of the project -
    indicators of the missile system (number of warheads, range, reliability, solid propellant), the ability of a boat to penetrate up to 2 - 2,5 meters of ice upon ascent, the comfort of the crew of a submarine, etc. etc.;
    and design flaws - missile dimensions, boat dimensions, basing difficulties.

    I believe that in the restoration of the remaining boats as full-time combat (patrolling) units THERE IS NO NEED!!! It is too EXPENSIVE, SMALL (military-economically inefficient).

    Agree that the strategic submarine Fleet of the Russian Navy NOW has a CHANCE to achieve the UNIFICATION-TYPICALization of boats and missiles, which, unfortunately, the Soviet Navy failed to achieve.
    SOON, for a long time, the MARINE component of the Strategic Triad of Russia will have to be provided by TOTAL two projects (and in the long run one)
    - Submarine Dolphin and R-29RM Rocket ... (Sineva, Liner) - HERE ORDER;
    - Borey submarines and ... well, if it turns out to make a Mace out of a "pin", then it will work out, if it does not work out (2016, as I understand it, is DECISIVE), then, I hope, the country's leadership, the Fleet will have the courage to say "ENOUGH BULAVA" and return (bring) Bark to mind (the prospect of reworking Boreyev is obvious), or COME up ANYTHING ELSE!

    BUT AS A UNIQUE TESTING CENTERS FOR THE BOATS OF THE BOAT OF THIS PROJECT INDEPENDENT !!!
    "Dmitry Donskoy" - is valid, if "Arkhangelsk" joins it, then the EFFICIENCY for the Country can surpass such an indicator as Cost. Unique "stands" have the right to exist in "single" copies !!!
    Let PROFESSIONALS decide!
    1. CKORPII
      CKORPII 12 March 2016 03: 31
      -2
      kmv.km BY sholby you
    2. CKORPII
      CKORPII 12 March 2016 03: 37
      0
      every answer to the enemy from all possible of our nuclear weapons keeps them from our borders