Military Review

Russian Navy: the issue of building a new series of submarines is being resolved

80
Command fleet prepares a proposal for the serial construction of new submarines, transfers RIA News report of the deputy commander-in-chief of the Navy Alexander Fedotenkov.


Russian Navy: the issue of building a new series of submarines is being resolved


On Friday, the Admiralty Shipyards (St. Petersburg) launched the fifth diesel-electric submarine of the 636.3 "Veliky Novgorod" series.

“These submarines of the 636.3 project fully comply with the requirements set by the Navy in terms of noise, detection systems, target designation, and, of course, most importantly, weapons. We all became convinced of this, so the main command of the Navy is preparing a proposal for the further construction of this series, and possibly other projects that are under trial operation, ”said Fedotenkov.

According to a high-ranking source of agency in the defense complex, under "other projects" the vice-admiral meant the submarines of the "fifth generation with an air-independent power plant," whose construction should begin "in the near future."

“The project“ Kalina ”of the development of TsBB MT Rubin is already there, but it has not yet been approved and agreed with the Ministry of Defense,” said the source.

He also announced the decision to dismantle the Arkhangelsk and Severstal submarines, the world's largest submarines of the 941 “Shark” project.

“Now a decision has been made to dispose of Severstal and Arkhangelsk at the Severodvinsk plant Zvezdochka,” said a source. From this series in the fleet will remain the only boat "Dmitry Donskoy." Total was built 6 submarines.

The creation of these boats at one time "influenced the United States to conclude an SALT-2 contract," he recalled. “Parity was established between the USSR and the United States in naval strategic nuclear forces,” the source added.

“But then the Americans remade their strategic Ohio-class submarines to carry Tomahawk cruise missiles,” he noted. “We, with the help of the same Americans, disposed of three boats, the remaining two for a long time were in conservation, and now they go under the knife.”

According to the interlocutor, the Russian "Sharks" could also be modernized and armed 300 with Caliber cruise missiles.
Photos used:
RIA News. Alexey Danichev
80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets 19 March 2016 10: 02
    -3
    I wonder how many Caliber could be placed during the modernization on the Shark?
    1. Coconut Tima
      Coconut Tima 19 March 2016 10: 05
      +17
      Quote: Arctidian
      I wonder how many Caliber could be placed during the modernization on the Shark?

      According to the interlocutor, the Russian "Sharks" could also be modernized and armed 300 with Caliber cruise missiles.
      1. MARK
        MARK 19 March 2016 10: 06
        +18
        Power, what else to say ... Thank you guys! hi
        1. PKK
          PKK 19 March 2016 11: 22
          +23
          AAAAAAAAAAAAAA I do not want sharks to break !!
        2. ametist415
          ametist415 19 March 2016 11: 45
          -3
          etc. 941 and etc. 949 is a sabotage. The costs are such that it was possible to build several nuclear aircraft carriers. The cost of one such boat is almost the same as the AK "Admiral Gorshkov". It would be better to build more BDRMs and single-rotor to simplify and further reduce noise.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 19 March 2016 11: 48
            +3
            Quote: ametist415
            pr. 941 and pr. 949 is a diversion

            Can the source be?
            1. ametist415
              ametist415 19 March 2016 12: 50
              +1
              V.P. Kuzin, V.I. Nikolsky. The Navy of the USSR.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 19 March 2016 15: 47
                +6
                Quote: ametist415
                to simplify and further reduce noise

                At the same time, these SSBNs, compared to their predecessors, became the quietest in the class of domestic SSBNs.
                (V.P. Kuzin, V.I. Nikolsky. USSR Navy.)
                Quote: ametist415
                The cost of one such boat is almost the same as the AK "Admiral Gorshkov"

                for two such SSBNs cost (even in the USSR where mass construction of atomic submarines was going on) more expensive
                than, for example, the aircraft carrier pr.11435 "Admiral Kuznetsov"

                (V.P. Kuzin, V.I. Nikolsky. USSR Navy.)
                Firstly, if we take into account the cost of airplanes, it is not a fact that AKs will cost as much as two 949 - an airplane is an expensive thing.
                Secondly, AKs were not nuclear, but boiler turbines, and ACs were more expensive.
                Thirdly, Kuzya is not a full-fledged aircraft carrier - how much would the Ulyanovsk with an AC and 1000000 tons cost?
                Fourthly, the construction of submarines always goes at different rates than the construction of a surface ship and, accordingly, will be more expensive
          2. skeket
            skeket 19 March 2016 13: 38
            +3
            Quote: ametist415
            The cost of one such boat is almost the same as the AK "Admiral Gorshkov". It would be better if more BDRMs were built and single-screw to simplify and further reduce noise.

            The main thing in this missile carrier was that it was on duty under the thickness of the Arctic ice, remaining invisible under the ice. The enormous mass and durable body is able to crack any ice mass, inflicting retribution on the adversary
            1. ametist415
              ametist415 20 March 2016 12: 24
              -1
              You can not have time
          3. VP
            VP 19 March 2016 14: 04
            0
            The Americans and their Sivulfs, too, were out of breath at one time, an extremely expensive dish came out, only three pieces were made and chopped off a series, switching to simpler but much cheaper Virginia.
            So the topic of high cost is a stern argument in all the armed forces no matter how rich they are.
      2. hrych
        hrych 19 March 2016 10: 41
        +27
        Quote: Tim Coconuts
        it was also possible to upgrade and equip 300 cruise missiles

        The whole point of this giant is in the absence of the need to break through to the Atlantic due to powerful and long-range missiles, but to leave under the cover of our surface forces in the Arctic on duty. Such a giant is simply not capable of breaking through, too noisy and not maneuverable. And the "calibers", although they hit several thousand kilometers, still require entry into the Atlantic, and there is a very good detection system between Scotland and Greenland, which costs the enemy dearly and is now wasted. Why did not titanium underwater racers go into the series, but because it also became irrelevant to avoid pursuit and again keep up with the AUG, the missiles are still faster and further. And the maintenance of such giants idle, and even with reactors - means of increased danger is possible and inexpedient, there academicians have big heads let them think, and Prezik decides. They also need to be serviced, pinned down a bunch of specialists, spend fuels and lubricants, uranium, somewhere to maintain and repair them, but with difficulties for giants, there are only cables, like the equator, etc. It's another matter to make an underwater aircraft carrier or tanker out of them, but it may turn out that building from scratch is cheaper, and the tasks that they solved are now being solved more efficiently by other means, like the brilliant "Voevoda" will now be replaced by "Sarmat", "Topol" by "Yarsami", etc. This is called scientific and technological progress.
        1. Vladimir 23rus
          Vladimir 23rus 19 March 2016 18: 57
          +2
          And the "calibers", although they hit several thousand kilometers, still require entry into the Atlantic, and there is a very good detection system between Scotland and Greenland, which costs the enemy dearly and is now wasted.
          Well, yes, but apart from the Atlantic they would have nowhere to be used with the same "Calibers". As an option, the Pacific Ocean for example. Or North because Canada has gone completely awry. You can cut it and someone will "drink the loot deliciously", what in return? Our "want" (by 2019-23-25, etc., etc.) objectively does not keep up with our "can". No wonder the states gave money for the first three "Sharks", so they were afraid?
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. DIVAN SOLDIER
        DIVAN SOLDIER 19 March 2016 10: 08
        +3
        Yes, but the shark's stealth is out of the question ... "Experts" say that it is very noisy ..
        1. hrych
          hrych 19 March 2016 10: 27
          +6
          It cannot be low-noise in principle, for it is simply huge, created according to a catamaran scheme, two reactors must be constantly maintained in operation, and this is a large number of noise-producing mechanisms. Of course, they are very sorry - this is a kind of wonder of the world, but their size is not from a good life, but from the need to deploy very high-rocket missiles, with a very long range, when there is no need to break through the defense, and it is possible to shoot from the pier. There was a problem with the lag of the USSR in the creation of solid rockets. Now the Mace is more compact, hence the carrier has the appropriate dimensions.
          1. ametist415
            ametist415 19 March 2016 11: 35
            +2
            Ave. 941 is the quietest SSBN of the Soviet fleet, i.e. Project 667BDR (BDRM) is more noisy, but all this is behind in noise from USS Ohio.
            1. hrych
              hrych 19 March 2016 11: 59
              +8
              Ohio is the same anachronism and also cannot be quiet because of its size, the same huge propellers, a greater resonating effect, the "Akula" again has 2 reactors, two huge propellers, which means the roar from the power plant is twice (conventionally). The fact that they put "tomahawks" in there is not because of a good life, but because of problems with ICBMs and their flawed concept of a "global strike". They cannot just decide on disposal yet, but they still have to, they have exhausted their resource. The term "Roaring Cows" is a method of psychological warfare against our submariners, and attempts to chase low noise lead to a decrease in the efficiency and reliability of systems. Actually, like stealth in aviation, the race for invisibility has led to degradation in speed, reliability, efficiency of avionics and enormous costs.
              1. rudolff
                rudolff 19 March 2016 13: 19
                +9
                Bastard, so big screws are for good, not harm. The "larger" the propeller, the lower the number of its revolutions while maintaining the same speed of the ship, and the lower the number of revolutions, the less the cavitating effect on the blades, and hence the lower the level of its own noise.
                1. hrych
                  hrych 19 March 2016 13: 46
                  +2
                  I agree when they compare different screws on the same size ships. Here it is necessary to disperse such a giant ... and even two screws ...
                  1. rudolff
                    rudolff 19 March 2016 14: 19
                    +6
                    We ensured that they completed the tasks of the PSU course at the training grounds, and so ... we accompanied them a couple of times. There is something to compare. Noisy only on moves above the average and on purging of the Central City Hospital. And so ... the usual level. On thrusters with TZ switched off without an active HAC, contact was lost periodically.
                  2. Pilat2009
                    Pilat2009 20 March 2016 09: 09
                    0
                    Quote: hrych
                    Here it is necessary to disperse such a giant

                    But why disperse it if it goes quietly under the ice?
                    Quietly pops up and gives a salvo of 300 missiles
                    1. hrych
                      hrych 20 March 2016 09: 49
                      +3
                      There is nowhere to launch a salvo of 300 missiles from under the ice of the Arctic, the distance from Washington to the North Pole is about 6 thousand kilometers, the CD is not capable of this (the calibers fly 2,5 thousand km), and the speed of the Caliber is 800 km per hour, i.e. fly him (if he flew) seven and a half hours, and the war blocks of Bulava fly twenty minutes. That's all the arithmetic. Ohio is being remodeled due to problems with the Trident, they are simply unusable due to the development of a resource, they do not meet modern requirements for ICBMs, first of all, to overcome missile defense, etc. will not be, the rocket is created for such a period. And the main strategic weapon of the United States, the Tomahawk, is available, so they put them wherever they go. Also, the range of the ax requires their monster to get close to our shore, and this is guaranteed its destruction, the axes themselves are slow-moving with the speed of Messerschmit and, although there are many of them, they are easily intercepted, and even by subsonic attack aircraft and cannon armament ... to create the preconditions for a "global strike" all the carriers must be brought to our coast, and this is weeks and for reconnaissance is not a problem, also the Russian Federation has excellent coastal anti-ship complexes, and it’s just a clock to fly to Moscow, from the nearest border point from the Baltic States or Poland near 5 hours, and the flight response takes 7 minutes. What kind of attack, when the attacker burns out 2 times faster than the defender? This is how we won the nuclear-missile arms race, although many do not understand this, but the fact that they cannot do anything either by military means or by economic means. Here on our athletes and recoup.
          2. Dart2027
            Dart2027 19 March 2016 11: 52
            +7
            Quote: hrych
            It cannot be low-noise in principle, for it is simply huge

            Nonsense. Low noise depends on how the acoustics (noise suppression) system is designed, and here the dimensions give a lot of room for maneuver. As the acquaintances, former submariners, said, during the exercises she "beat" all the other nuclear submarines.
            1. hrych
              hrych 19 March 2016 12: 08
              +2
              The system itself was not intended to be quiet because the whole point was not to break through somewhere. Do not be mistaken. And opposition from the enemy - i.e. intercepted by multipurpose pilots from the place of deployment, should be leveled by driving away reptiles with our surface means and anti-submarine aircraft. Therefore, they grew to the North. The Navy, and right up to the registration of an aircraft carrier ... Understand that you have come up not only with problems with the operation of the boat itself, but also with the means of support, i.e. surface and air. The giant must be protected ...
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 19 March 2016 15: 48
                +2
                Quote: hrych
                The system itself was not intended to be quiet because the whole point was not to break through somewhere. Do not be mistaken.

                The whole point of the submarine is to slip unnoticed and strike from an unexpected point. Otherwise, it makes no sense to go under water.
                1. hrych
                  hrych 19 March 2016 16: 42
                  -1
                  In this case, it’s just a departure to the endless depths of the Arctic, possibly under the ice and that’s all. Noise reduction in this case is not an end in itself and not the main thing, although it is undoubtedly applied. Plus, of course, there was an emphasis on autonomy, there is no submarine with such capabilities, where there are saunas with pools, etc. So it was necessary at that time, now the situation is different and other possibilities. Another technical level.
                  1. rudolff
                    rudolff 19 March 2016 17: 07
                    +1
                    There are saunas on other projects, but the pool is too loudly said. Little Velmi. Before autonomous, his bags of potatoes were loaded.
                    1. hrych
                      hrych 19 March 2016 17: 18
                      0
                      http://yahooeu.eu/interesting/10264-podvodnaya-lodka-akula.html
                      http://pulson.ru/technology-2/vnutri-podvodnoy-lodki-arhangelsk-proekt-941-tk-17
                      -13-foto.html / comment-page-1

                      However ...
                  2. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 19 March 2016 18: 13
                    0
                    Quote: hrych
                    emphasized autonomy

                    In fact, the autonomy of all nuclear submarines is the same, although the 941 was certainly more convenient.
        2. MARK
          MARK 19 March 2016 10: 43
          0
          Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
          Yes, but the shark's stealth is out of the question ... "Experts" say that it is very noisy ..

          And under the ice of the Arctic, if they quiet down on alert ...? Here is the same ... hi
          1. hrych
            hrych 19 March 2016 10: 54
            +5
            Quote: MARK
            if they shut up on combat duty

            A nuclear reactor cannot simply be turned off - it is a chain reaction, the mechanisms for its provision cannot be disconnected from here - it is a constant strong hum, it also has huge electromagnetic radiation due to its size and has a long detection range with anti-submarine aircraft magnetometers. These are unfortunately physical laws.
            1. MARK
              MARK 19 March 2016 11: 07
              -9
              Quote: hrych
              Quote: MARK
              if they shut up on combat duty

              A nuclear reactor cannot simply be turned off - it is a chain reaction, the mechanisms for its provision cannot be disconnected from here - it is a constant strong hum, it also has huge electromagnetic radiation due to its size and has a long detection range with anti-submarine aircraft magnetometers. These are unfortunately physical laws.

              Well, it’s clear that only the ice of the Arctic will begin to melt? Do you think that everything is in vain ..? Our Kulibins are not so stupid .. THESE submarines under California will slander and will wait in the wings! You are our physicist ... tongue
              1. hrych
                hrych 19 March 2016 11: 19
                +7
                The elimination of the "Sharks" was entrusted to the multipurpose nuclear submarines of the United States and Britain, they were supposed to accompany them from the place of deployment, further under the ice of the Arctic, it is clear that they are less noisy and more maneuverable, respectively, "see" further and earlier. And our Kulibins just made "Borey" with "Bulava" ...
            2. rudolff
              rudolff 19 March 2016 11: 27
              +6
              Khrych, there is no need to "turn off" the reactor, it is simply brought into low-power mode. On the BS, "one board" is more often used, the second is connected as needed.
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 19 March 2016 12: 54
                +2
                Quote: rudolff
                there is no need to "turn off" the reactor,

                And disappear from the site too !!! am
                Hello Volchara! With the 110 anniversary of the submarine you, Rudolph!
                Happiness, health, GOOD LUCK! comrade. drinks
                1. rudolff
                  rudolff 19 March 2016 13: 03
                  +3
                  Thanks, buddy Boa! Happy holiday! I do not disappear, I look through sometimes. Just writing ... reluctance.
                  drinks
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 19 March 2016 12: 49
            +3
            Quote: MARK
            And under the ice of the Arctic, if they quiet down on alert ...
            God forbid you to "calm down" in the autonomous system under the ice of the Arctic!
            The boat calms down only when the AZ drops, and even then the ESPs continue to dampen the reactor.
            But the "icing" tactic was worked out for a long time, and "we did it!" Then, psychologically, it is always calmer if there is a hole somewhere nearby, or the ice meter shows divorces. Although 941 broke the ice up to 3,0 m. True, then they suffered, pushing ice floes off the mine covers ...
        3. Koshak
          Koshak 21 March 2016 00: 52
          0
          Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
          Yes, but the shark's stealth is out of the question ... "Experts" say that it is very noisy ..

          Someone jokingly said that when the Sharks left Polyarny, they could be heard in New York.
    3. donavi49
      donavi49 19 March 2016 10: 10
      +12
      The question is how to upgrade? The Americans simply pushed 7 pieces into the mine. That is, a minimum of improvements and they flew into the green lard.

      Sharks have mines that are not critically large, that is, one more row of rockets cannot be shoved. As a result, 7-9 missiles will go into the mine. 20 mine (the Americans have 24 - but they have not altered all the mines).

      Total 140-180 calibres, this is if all the mines are scored, which is not a fact that will come out. Based on the size, it comes out rather economically. You can cut out all the mines and fill the inter-hull space with mines, there 300-500 will come out, but it’s cheaper to assemble a new boat.

      Plus, the Shark itself knocked out a resource near the wall, it requires capital.
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 19 March 2016 11: 36
        +10
        donavi49, with the Shark is a little easier in this regard. She has missile silos not in the rocket compartments, but in the inter-space. Under the light and between two durable. In principle, without a global redesign, it would be possible to install any mines in a different number.
    4. kapitan92
      kapitan92 19 March 2016 10: 13
      +6
      Quote: Arctidian
      I wonder how many Caliber could be placed during the modernization on the Shark?

      "...... According to the interlocutor, the Russian" Sharks "could also be modernized and armed with 300" Caliber "cruise missiles" .....
      Read the article to the end!
    5. 79807420129
      79807420129 19 March 2016 10: 13
      +12
      It’s not a tricky thing to put under the knife to the delight of the mattresses, but maybe Arkhangelsk or Severstal could be transferred to a museum?
      1. nrex
        nrex 19 March 2016 11: 02
        0
        Museum version is a costly affair. And it is unlikely to pay off. No need to make extra holes in your budget pocket.
        1. UVB
          UVB 19 March 2016 11: 21
          +2
          Quote: nrex
          Museum version is a costly affair. And it is unlikely to pay off. No need to make extra holes in your budget pocket.
          But at least a monument ship can be made! Don't Sharks Deserve It? It is highly unlikely that anything like this will be built anywhere else, at least in the foreseeable future!
      2. ametist415
        ametist415 19 March 2016 11: 24
        .
        Museum of gigantomania and stupidity.
    6. Blondy
      Blondy 19 March 2016 11: 39
      0
      Yes, here the naval commanders have reason to scratch their turnips - either submarines or aircraft carriers. The aircraft carriers (and all kinds of cruisers) look very menacing, and the submarines are not visible at all.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 19 March 2016 13: 08
        +4
        Quote: Blondy
        and the submarine is not visible at all.

        That's the whole charm! It's like a walk on loose ice ... Gobbing! And you are head over heels in ... water. (Ama - well, in general you understand!)
        But I do not yet know a "surface" (as opposed to a "submarine"!) Cruiser, which could "cut" half of the States with an onboard salvo.
        PS. Do you know why when the "Mosquito" appeared, they called it "sunburn"? - Because, everything is fine, you bask in the sun, and suddenly the skin slides off! (not obvious, but extremely painful and unpleasant!)
        So here: from under the water, from the open southern RON, a gift arrives ... but there is no time for a missile defense reaction ... Sadness, however.
        1. Generalissimo
          Generalissimo 19 March 2016 13: 14
          .
          Yeah, yes - at first, unexpectedly, a bump and then grunting with a depth bomb and you won’t even have time to shoot the emergency buoy
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 19 March 2016 14: 28
            +2
            Quote: Generalissimo
            unexpectedly at first, and then grunting with a deep bomb and you don’t even have time to shoot the emergency buoy

            Are you talking about tactics of PLO forces?
            Well, if you didn’t find it, then where do you put the GB?
            And if the whole pack is chasing after a simulator in a hunting frenzy, and you quietly scoop out on tiptoe from the area ... Then how?
            Or are you on the principle "I can see everything from above, you just know ..."
            So that is the lessons of "Atrina". Read books, develop your "tactical horizons", and "then you will succeed!"
            1. Generalissimo
              Generalissimo 19 March 2016 16: 05
              0
              This is because the boat does not always hear the noise of aircraft propellers, and is practically defenseless against it. From active sounding of GAS, simulators (with the noise recorded in them by which submarines can even be identified?) Help a lot.
      2. Generalissimo
        Generalissimo 19 March 2016 13: 15
        0
        all sorts of submarines will go beyond the horizon and they are also not visible, even in clear weather
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 19 March 2016 14: 32
          +2
          Quote: Generalissimo
          all sorts of submarines will go beyond the horizon and they are also not visible, even in clear weather

          But you can’t imagine how good they are HEARED !!! yes
          1. Generalissimo
            Generalissimo 19 March 2016 16: 06
            0
            Isn't it HEARING?
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 19 March 2016 18: 22
              +1
              Quote: Generalissimo
              Isn't it HEARING?

              "Admiral Jeremy M. Boorda, who was the Chief of Operations Staff of the US Navy in 1994-1996, noted that American ships were unable to detect the Pike-B, going at a speed of 6-9 knots, then because of their low noise, the boats of Project 971 correspond to the parameters of boats of the fourth generation. "
              These were the 3 generation boats. Now they are coming - the fourth, with a system for actively suppressing their own noise. The boat on g / a field merges with the natural noise level of the sea.
              Why listen to him? The sea, it is the sea!
              1. Generalissimo
                Generalissimo 19 March 2016 20: 23
                0
                If the enemy praises you, then that means what?
  2. Altona
    Altona 19 March 2016 10: 06
    +5
    In principle, the development of a submarine fleet with new power plants and cruise missiles completely changes the concept of its use. Expands the possibilities, so to speak. The submarine gets the capabilities of a surface ship, strike capabilities against ground targets with tactical missiles, as was shown in Syria. And this means a lot of stress on our "potential friends", which is very good.
  3. askort154
    askort154 19 March 2016 10: 09
    +1
    Interestingly, before the demonstration (photo, video) of boats, the propellers were always sheathed.
    And here, on the contrary, a close-up screw? There are still photos from a different angle. I would like to hear the opinion of the pros.
    1. DIVAN SOLDIER
      DIVAN SOLDIER 19 March 2016 10: 14
      +2
      And what can a Warsaw woman have secret? We sell them all over the world, everything is the same everywhere. They hide only "calibers"
    2. Ze Kot
      Ze Kot 19 March 2016 10: 45
      +3
      Quote: askort154
      Interestingly, before the demonstration (photo, video) of boats, the propellers were always sheathed.
      And here, on the contrary, a close-up screw? There are still photos from a different angle. I would like to hear the opinion of the pros.



      I raised this question yesterday. The "couch soldier" replied. I was told the same yesterday.

      But still, I read that this is a nonsense and a flaw in the intelligence services.
  4. avvg
    avvg 19 March 2016 10: 12
    0
    In my opinion, these submarines, the Americans and "Small-breasted", off the coast of the Old and New Worlds will be looking for a long time.
  5. alexmach
    alexmach 19 March 2016 10: 17
    +2
    According to the interlocutor, the Russian Sharks could also be modernized and equipped with 300 Caliber cruise missiles.


    So what's the deal? Is it really cheaper to build new ones? or not at all?
  6. Tambov Wolf
    Tambov Wolf 19 March 2016 10: 19
    +5
    Under the USSR, a photographer would have received a large sentence for disclosing secrets and espionage for a photo of a screw. And now they are publishing it with might and main in magazines. Badak in the country.
    1. GSVG 86-88
      GSVG 86-88 19 March 2016 10: 25
      +3
      it is no coincidence, there are new screws.
    2. MARK
      MARK 19 March 2016 10: 26
      +6
      Quote: Tambov Wolf
      Under the USSR, a photographer would have received a large sentence for disclosing secrets and espionage for a photo of a screw. And now they are publishing it with might and main in magazines. Badak in the country.

      The internet however ... wink
    3. PSih2097
      PSih2097 19 March 2016 10: 38
      +1
      Quote: Tambov Wolf
      Under the USSR, a photographer would receive a long sentence for disclosing secrets and espionage for a photo of a screw.

      maybe on the contrary, I would get 100 thousand (or maybe more) bucks and a villa on the shore okanean ... laughing
    4. Xsanchez
      Xsanchez 19 March 2016 11: 11
      +2
      This is the screw of the old scheme, from the decommissioned "Severstal", there is nothing secret left in them (they are outdated). Nobody will show the new, the screws are generally written off, now the newest and low-noise are water cannons, they don't even need keels, there are all-turning blocks: to the right, up and down, diagonals, and in general any necessary angle. Reduces noise, increases maneuverability and speed.
      1. ametist415
        ametist415 19 March 2016 11: 27
        0
        Only submarines do not put water cannons, even the United States.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 19 March 2016 13: 19
          +1
          Quote: ametist415
          Only submarines do not put water cannons, even the United States.

          Well, who told you that !?
          1. ametist415
            ametist415 19 March 2016 13: 28
            0
            This is not a water washer, but a special screw attachment for certain factory tests, which allows you not to drive the ship once again into the sea.
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 19 March 2016 14: 56
              +4
              Quote: ametist415
              This is not a water cannon,

              ??? For your own LAZY, well, look at least at Wiki, my dear opponent!
              In fact:
              Water cannons are on the English Astyuts, Amer Sea Si Wolves, Virginia. The Ami simply borrowed them from the Angles.
              Skipped info about our Boriks, but I don’t have exact data, therefore I won’t lie.
              Our experiment with Alrosa is being studied, but the water cannons will be on new projects.
            2. The comment was deleted.
          2. kote119
            kote119 19 March 2016 14: 04
            0
            KAA boa with a holiday! Health and good luck to you.
            Interrogative. If in the subject, how do nozzles differ from water cannons?
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 19 March 2016 17: 52
              +7
              Quote: kote119
              How do nozzles differ from water cannons?
              Only out of respect for you: the vodka on the table is getting cold, the holiday is all the same ...
              Briefly, from memory.
              Water cannon the essence of a water jet propulsion device, the driving force of which is created in an annular nozzle, where (tightly lapped, with a gap of 0,0001 m) the IMPELLER rotates - the working body of a water cannon, which consists of several blades (blades) enclosed in a ring. Schemes with water supply pipes are nonsense of the 60s, pumping from edition to edition. Everything is much simpler: the impeller drives the stream flowing around the boat's hull along the laminar and ("ramps it with a screw"), giving off the energy of the power plant shaft rotation, pushes it out of the hydrojet nozzle narrowing at the outlet.
              Nozzle or guard ring. They, as a rule, protect the propeller from foreign objects, and also shield radial radiation from it, structure (somewhat condense) the incoming water flow. A screw is visible in the clearance, large gaps, the length of the ring, as a rule, should be 2 of the diameter of the screw.
              The water cannon, unlike the nozzle / ring, is not visible in the lumen.
              (I'll try to show in the photo.)
              We tested our domestic water-jet system at 877V, at the Black Sea Fleet, submarine "Alrosa" 4th division of the submarine division of the Black Sea Fleet. (The jokers deciphered the name of the boat not as "diamonds of Russia", but as "alcoholics ...." / "alcoholic dew" - naval humor, damn it!)
              The 955 was equipped with a "hydrojet propulsion system GRDK-3,5M" (a water jet propulsion system with high propulsive characteristics). The analogue will be installed on 885M.
              What is the trick? The water cannon does not allow cavitation at high speeds of rotation of the impeller, thereby increasing its secrecy and the value of the maximum low-noise course of the submarine. It is believed that a powerful jet better erodes the thermal trail of an atomic ship, and so on.
              That's all in short. If you do not mention the 3-x types of types of lobed systems (axial, diagonal and sediagonal). But this is a separate conversation. With vauzhenie, hi
          3. ametist415
            ametist415 20 March 2016 15: 10
            0
            Some domestic analysts - incompetent in the field of military shipbuilding - still believe that at least some US boats are equipped with jet propulsion devices. They refer to a photograph of the type shown above. In fact, in the aft end of the boat is not a hydro-jet propulsion device, but a unloading device that is specially put on the propeller to eliminate the propeller stop during its rotation. Such unloading devices are used in countries that are highly cultural in terms of shipbuilding, so that the ship’s power plant can be tested in all operating modes, by placing the ship at the outfitting embankment of the plant — without going to sea. This provides significant savings in time and money during the commissioning, and, in case of any malfunctions, the ship does not have to be towed from the test area to the plant to eliminate them. In states where engineers are not busy working in their specialty, some “scientific luminaries” continue to draw conclusions based on such photographs that the USA has made incredible progress in the acoustic stealth of submarines due to the “miraculous water movement”. It was they (either because of their own stupidity, or because they were “agents of influence” during the Soviet era) with foam at the mouth that we needed to install hydroreactive propulsion on the Navy’s nuclear submarines in order to keep up with the acoustic stealth of the probable enemy. The fact that the US Navy has a completely different philosophy of creating a fleet, from which other tactical and technical requirements for ships derive, and these other requirements are expressed in other designs, technologies and the organization of the process of creating a ship, domestic "grief analysts" do not even suspect and they are not interested in the philosophy of shipbuilding that is “alien to them”: for some, such a philosophy is a banal “boltology”, while for others it is too abstract and complicated, but they need to “do business” today.
            Under the influence of such "analysts" in the late 70s and early 80s of the last century, significant financial resources were allocated on this issue to study the possible profit of the installation of a hydro-jet propulsion unit at the Navy’s nuclear submarines. Fortunately, common sense still triumphed, and work on this project ended at the level of laboratory and theoretical research - it didn’t go further than this: not a single nuclear submarine was installed.

            An excerpt from the note of the USSR VP "CIA Operation" White Stallion "- the second episode of the Hollywood film" The Hunt for Red October "?
      2. askort154
        askort154 19 March 2016 12: 52
        0
        Xsanchez ... This is a screw of the old scheme, from the decommissioned "Severstal", there is nothing secret left in them (outdated)

        Clear! I assumed, I wanted to hear the opinion of the pros. Thank!
  7. kapitan92
    kapitan92 19 March 2016 10: 20
    +5
    "... The command of the fleet is preparing a proposal for the serial construction of new submarines, RIA Novosti reports a message from the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Alexander Fedotenkov." ...
    Questions immediately arise to the command of the fleet. Couldn't prepare an offer before? If there are problems with the wind turbine, then why did you not place an order for a pair of Varshavyanks? Slipways are idle, time is ticking!
    Admirals need to lift ass more often from chairs!
    1. ver_
      ver_ 19 March 2016 12: 56
      +2
      ... from some materials - not directly related to army topics, I have the opinion that VNEU is not the topic now - new energy technologies have come with a huge service life of about 50 years .. and the lack of radiation ..
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 19 March 2016 13: 26
      +5
      Quote: kapitan92
      If there are problems with the wind turbine, then why didn't you place an order for a pair of Varshavyanks? Slipways are idle

      1. Problems with VNEU seem to be resolved. This year "St. Petersburg" is transferred to the fleet.
      2. Admiralty build 2 buildings 677pr. Orders for Kaliny are awaiting.
      3. Stapeli in work. Nobody will let them stand idle: time is money!
  8. Alexander 3
    Alexander 3 19 March 2016 10: 26
    0
    The main advantage of modern boats with non-volatile power plants is noiselessness.
  9. Don36
    Don36 19 March 2016 10: 44
    -7
    “Varshavyanka” is not bad, but 4 missiles “Caliber” is not a lot. Now, if these submarines were to add another missile compartment, with vertical missile silos, it would be an interesting experiment. In the end, the first Soviet missile submarines were diesel, a diesel submarine is several times cheaper than a nuclear one. International agreements ban medium-range missiles, but the US is already installing dual-use launchers in the EU, from which it is possible to launch not only anti-aircraft missiles, but also Tomahawk cruise missiles. This agreement does not apply to naval missiles, therefore, Caliber missiles on Russian ships and submarines must be placed to the maximum. The launch range of Caliber missiles is 5500 km and a submarine armed with them could keep the whole of Turkey at gunpoint, standing on base, in Sevastopol or in any Russian port of the Black Sea.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 19 March 2016 13: 44
      +5
      Quote: Don36
      Now, if these submarines add another missile compartment, with vertical missile silos, it would be an interesting experiment.

      Look at the Amur-950 project - and you don't need to discover America! laughing
      1. Don36
        Don36 19 March 2016 16: 13
        0
        `` Cupid '' has not been brought to mind and it is not known whether they will finish it, but it is easier, cheaper and faster to modify the Varshavyanka. In general, I don’t care what type of submarines will enter service with the Russian Navy, the main thing is that they are sufficiently new, modern and combat-ready.
  10. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 19 March 2016 11: 05
    -5
    The word "Caliber" is now remembered by all and sundry. 300 for the Typhoon !? What for? To lose a ship and some of the missiles not fired? For that matter, Project 941 can also be fired from the pier, but with more solid rockets. Re-equip as an air defense center, missile defense! Although there is nothing good about gigantomania, there are more disadvantages: visibility, noise, etc.
    1. MARK
      MARK 19 March 2016 11: 16
      -4
      Quote: Evgeniy667b
      The word "Caliber" is now remembered by all and sundry. 300 for the Typhoon !? What for? To lose a ship and some of the missiles not fired? For that matter, Project 941 can also be fired from the pier, but with more solid rockets. Re-equip as an air defense center, missile defense! Although there is nothing good about gigantomania, there are more disadvantages: visibility, noise, etc.

      I like this.! Such (crap) is lying at the bottom near the USA, quietly quietly ... And the container ships are floating on top (back and forth ... and they make noise, sometimes they stop, exchange something ..)
      1. ametist415
        ametist415 19 March 2016 11: 30
        +2
        The submarine cannot go to the bottom, unless it drowned.
        1. MARK
          MARK 19 March 2016 11: 49
          -2
          Quote: ametist415
          The submarine cannot go to the bottom, unless it drowned.

          Ours can ... If necessary! In general, the concept of "go to the bottom .." This is a multi-meaning expression! I got your hint (about Kursk ..)
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 19 March 2016 13: 58
            +1
            Quote: MARK
            Ours can ... If necessary!

            I apologize, and YOURS is who?
            Second question: Are you so impatient to shove the RPKSN into the zone of continuous PLO staff with the most powerful maneuverable forces of the PLS? Laurels of the Cuban missile crisis do not let you sleep peacefully !? (or did the "Internationale" torture you? - "Our mind is boiling, indignant ...")
            Therefore, unequivocally: NOT NECESSARY! Because where "such steamers" go, there is peace and quiet! and the paradise reserve of the North American continent ... yes
            And if at all = 100% PLO_PVO_PRO =, then it’s better not to come up with an air defense system!
            Than OUR did not fail to use, as soon as the arms became "long".
  11. Ros 56
    Ros 56 19 March 2016 11: 23
    +14
    Guys, well, you are like children straight, one after the photo "plants", the other "welds" the missile compartments. Understand one thing, there are people in charge of information, and there are people in charge of disinformation, to each his own, and you don't have to be smarter than everyone else. You have heard a lot about "Calibers" before using them, and what you know about "Armata", that's what they showed you, you know, but how in reality, then you will find out. For example, smart people hinted to me that the Union would collapse back in the late 70s, I argued with foaming at my mouth that this could not be, because it could never be. And those in the know smiled meaningfully and advised to keep their mouths shut so as not to make trouble. So, everything has its time.
    1. Koronik
      Koronik 19 March 2016 11: 50
      0
      ... "You have heard a lot about" Calibers "before they were used, but what you know about" Armata ", that's what they showed you, you know, but how in fact, then you will find out."
      That's right - then there will be a surprise - Vinokur, he said so.
    2. sub307
      sub307 19 March 2016 12: 00
      +1
      I absolutely agree with VVMI .... One of the "smart people" was my grandfather, I also did not believe, being a cadet of VVMIU .... And with 941 ave. It can be much simpler: elementary "the budget strains" its content and even with (again, an expensive rework) does not fit into any of the current concepts of use ..., well, etc. And so this, or some other way, no one will "report" to us now.
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 19 March 2016 14: 15
      +4
      Quote: Ros 56
      that the Union would fall apart; smart people hinted at the end of the 70’s,
      Yur, and in the 70 years THESE SMART PEOPLE already knew that the provincial secretary of the city committee of the CPSU was preparing to ruin the Union?
      Quote: Ros 56
      knowledgeable smiled meaningfully and advised to keep your mouth shut so as not to make trouble.

      Yur, by God! It would be better if you had a chat!
      Because your troubles (asylum?) Fade before the catastrophe of such a state as the USSR!
      Were you ready to sacrifice yourself for all of us?
      We would have given you a Hero (most likely posthumously ...) by your name, a city, a ship or some other "attraction" (I almost said "crap") would be called. The pioneers would be proud of you! They would have composed songs and legends about you ... Like such a guy lived ...
      - What, don't you like my fantasy And why do you think we should like yours? negative
      1. Generalissimo
        Generalissimo 19 March 2016 16: 10
        0
        In general, yes, but what? For almost everyone with concepts, this became clear in the very beginning of the 80s exactly.
      2. Ros 56
        Ros 56 21 March 2016 12: 31
        0
        Perhaps you seem to yourself so smart, they say exposed a talker. In fact, you are an ordinary daffodil, balabol.
        I’ll try to explain: firstly, I didn’t impose anything on anyone, but said that they hinted. Secondly, I did not believe this, as millions would not have believed. I was a patriot, and so I raised my students.
        So do not make yourself a know-it-all, and do not invent a gag, judging by the text, you are just spiteful, well, the flag is in your hands Sasha.
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. pts-m
    pts-m 19 March 2016 11: 56
    0
    Yeah, with these lead screws you can fly into the air!
  15. rudolff
    rudolff 19 March 2016 12: 47
    +4
    Shark missile silos in the interbody.
  16. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 19 March 2016 12: 48
    +5
    I look at the Sharks and art from childhood are remembered right away, about transport submarines for the North wassat







    Probably just how cargo submarines would have rolled at one time, but IMHO are too bulky for a combat submarine. I hope the backlog will not disappear and in the distant future, nevertheless, for the ice transport their experience in creating will be taken into account.
  17. In100gram
    In100gram 19 March 2016 14: 41
    +1
    I do not understand submarines, but impressive soldier
  18. xtur
    xtur 19 March 2016 15: 26
    0
    well here we are couch generals It has long been said that it is necessary to put CD / RCC on Sharks, and not cut them on metal, now the pros have publicly agreed with us :-)

    We have been hearing regularly for several years that a decision has been made to cut them, but they are still alive. I am sure that after the shelling of the Syrian coastline, the Kyrgyz Republic will only cut through these submarines, leaving RTOs in the Caspian as the main carrier of "Caliber", as it is today.

    So, since it’s been publicly discussed that 300 Caliber can be put on the Sharks, then consider that the decision to upgrade them has already been made :-)


    After all, they made the decision to resume the production of Tu-160, modernize 1144 and openly say that aircraft carriers will begin to build when they modernize the shipyard - everything from the principal systems that the USSR had in service is returned / modernized. So Sharks will still serve.
  19. Zomanus
    Zomanus 19 March 2016 16: 38
    0
    Campaign photographer or author of the article is still the troll.)))
    Screw blades close-up, largest.
    AAA, treason to the motherland, to catch, shoot !!!)))
    "Kalina" promises to be a very interesting boat.
    If they put universal launchers there,
    then it will be possible to shoot from it not only with "Calibers",
    but also "Yakhonts" and possibly "Zircons".
  20. Dezinto
    Dezinto 19 March 2016 19: 23
    0
    Why then screw the screws into the covers when rolled out of the workshop? If there are such photos!
  21. cergey51046
    cergey51046 19 March 2016 22: 21
    0
    It may be cheaper to build a new one than remaking an old one. Better a lot of small ones than one big one.
  22. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 20 March 2016 23: 19
    0
    Old 26! So "come true", will they let "Sharks" on "needles" or how do MChS officers write "under the knife"? Like some kind of cattle !? Have the firemen got used to it - slaughterhouses are all under the knife or with hooks, so it won't take long to turn into cattle themselves? Or in "Monsieur" Count Taburetkin - Serdyukov?
  23. drunkram
    drunkram 21 March 2016 08: 10
    0
    300 missiles belay maybe still not necessary? crying
  24. Old26
    Old26 21 March 2016 09: 33
    0
    Quote: Ros 56
    You've heard a lot about "Calibers" before using them,

    If you wanted, you could hear it. As they say, "he who has ears, let him hear." Of course, if you do not take "Murzilki" and "Vicky" as the ultimate truth. With regard to the non-export modification of the Caliber, back in 2013, approximate ranges were already clear. For in an interview with the commander of the KVF it was said "in black and white" ("black in Russian") that in the Caspian the Dagestan TFR (EMNIP) had shot at exercises. On a sea target - it was hit at a distance of 375 km and on land - at range more than a thousand kilometers... Further, EMNIP was told that if necessary, then we will block the Persian Gulf in range and reach Israel. That is, already in 2013 it was known that the range in the anti-ship missile version was at least 375 km, and in the "along the coast" version - at least 1000 km
    Many then considered this interview "bragging" with an element of "PR". And in 2015 they suddenly began to shout: "And" Caliber turns out to be wow ... "

    Quote: kugelblitz
    Probably just how cargo submarines would have rolled at one time, but IMHO are too bulky for a combat submarine. I hope the backlog will not disappear and in the distant future, nevertheless, for the ice transport their experience in creating will be taken into account.

    It was precisely the civilian options that did not go. EMNIP had projects for an underwater tanker and a transport boat (one of them seems to have a project 918, and the other, if my sclerosis does not change me - 921). But even in those years of the USSR, they "did not go".
  25. Old26
    Old26 21 March 2016 09: 34
    0
    Quote: xtur
    So, since it’s been publicly discussed that 300 Caliber can be put on the Sharks, then consider that the decision to upgrade them has already been made :-)

    You can carry any nonsense publicly. How does it sometimes Rogozin or deputy defense minister Yuriy Borisov. Nothing changes from this.

    Even the amount in 300 KR what is called "sucked from the finger". Just to show that we will have twice as much as amers.

    It is based on ordinary arithmetic. Say at P-39 shaft diameter 2,4 meters, so you can put it there about 7 rockets (enter in diameter). Yeah. The length of the R-39 rocket is 16 meters - means the length there "train" will include two "Caliber". TWO multiplied by SEVEN and TWENTY - here are the desired almost three hundred... And how all these missiles will be placed in the mine, the author thought? Especially the "train"?

    Quote: KudrevKN
    Old 26! So "come true", will they let "Sharks" on "needles" or how do MChS officers write "under the knife"? Like some kind of cattle !? Have the firemen got used to it - slaughterhouses are all under the knife or with hooks, so it won't take long to turn into cattle themselves? Or in "Monsieur" Count Taburetkin - Serdyukov?

    You know, Konstantin! Not really, I trust unnamed senior defense official. Present the plant (there was both a name and a position) clearly said that in the next couple of years there will be no disposal. To remove these non-deployed silos from the standings, manhole covers will be removed and plugs will be placed on them. But when will OFFICIAL confirmation from the mouth OFFICIAL - then we will speak