Military Review

Media: the light body of "Arkhangelsk" will become a museum exhibit

111
The light hull of the strategic submarine of the 941 “Shark” project (SSBN “Typhoon” according to the NATO codification) “Arkhangelsk” after disposal will be put up in the Moscow “Patriot” park, reports TASS Post your source in the DIC.




“The disposal of the Arkhangelsk, which began at Zvezdochka, will be carried out in such a way as not to cause much damage to the light hull of the nuclear-powered icebreaker. This steel case with a length of more than 170 meters, which housed five inhabited solid hulls, will be brought to Patriot Park, where it will be exhibited at one of the exhibition sites as a museum exhibit ”,
said the source.

Earlier it was reported that experts "Zvezdochki" in the current year should disable the missile system "Arkhangelsk", installing plugs on the ship's missile shaft.

TASS Help: "Strategic missile carrier" Arkhangelsk "was commissioned in 1987 year. The submarine, whose underwater displacement reached almost 50 thousand tons, was armed with X-NUMX intercontinental ballistic missiles P-20 (PCM-39), the mass of each of which was up to 52 tons. Due to the lack of ammunition, the Arkhangelsk was taken to the reserve in the middle of the 90s. ”
Photos used:
d1.dvinainform.ru
111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. NAV-STAR
    NAV-STAR 21 March 2016 14: 58
    +24
    May this cruiser in eternal parking praise the engineer. Glory to the shipbuilders !!!
    1. DIVAN SOLDIER
      DIVAN SOLDIER 21 March 2016 15: 00
      +7
      They broke the boat at the behest of the Americans and put a "patriot" in the park, as it is "patriotic".
      1. Temples
        Temples 21 March 2016 15: 01
        +13
        The grandiose creation of Russian scientists, engineers and workers.
        1. 79807420129
          79807420129 21 March 2016 15: 14
          +14
          Quote: Temples
          The grandiose creation of Russian scientists, engineers and workers.

          So it will be a museum telling about their ingenious creation, a very necessary thing.
        2. lelikas
          lelikas 21 March 2016 16: 20
          +9
          Quote: Temples
          The grandiose creation of Russian scientists, engineers and workers.

          Soviet!
        3. Dewa1s
          Dewa1s 23 March 2016 05: 01
          0
          It’s a sin not to perpetuate such insanity, let it be a warning to all engineers
      2. Pravdarm
        Pravdarm 21 March 2016 15: 06
        +8
        And how much effort and money will be spent on transportation to the Patriot Park.
        It’s a pity, I lived only 13 years, then to the reserve.
        No, of course there she will look cool, kids, and adults will be delighted!
        1. Ami du peuple
          Ami du peuple 21 March 2016 15: 09
          +9
          strategic nuclear submarine of project 885 Arkhangelsk
          Eh, damn it, are you writing something ?! The TK-17 (aka "Arkhangelsk") of the 941st project is being disposed of! Or the newest "Ash trees" under construction are letting them go?
          Although in the material there is a photo of "Sharks" and this kakbe calms smile
      3. 79807420129
        79807420129 21 March 2016 15: 26
        +10
        Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
        They broke the boat at the behest of the Americans and put a "patriot" in the park, as it is "patriotic".

        Well, do not get excited, the "Dmitry Donskoy" of this project 941 is afloat, and it is too expensive to modernize, it is easier to build a new one, but here at least it will be a museum.
      4. Maksus
        Maksus 21 March 2016 15: 28
        +3
        This exhibit will be, but why not save a couple of compartments? This is a unique boat.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 21 March 2016 16: 01
          +3
          Quote: Maksus
          This exhibit will be, but why not save a couple of compartments?

          A pair of compartments of this SSBN will be kept for sure. 50-100 years old. Just do not show them ... smile
          1. FenH
            FenH 21 March 2016 16: 10
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Quote: Maksus
            This exhibit will be, but why not save a couple of compartments?

            A pair of compartments of this SSBN will be kept for sure. 50-100 years old. Just do not show them ... smile

            Yes, it seems like they learned how to process them. The BN-800 was built for these purposes, although I can hobble hi
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 21 March 2016 16: 59
              +2
              Quote: FenH
              Yes, it seems like they learned how to process them. The BN-800 was built for these purposes, although I can hobble

              EMNIP, BN reactors process SNF.
              With the reactor compartments, the problem is that even after unloading the fuel, the reactor structures are still luminescent with induced radiation. And until it subsides, it cannot be disposed of.
              So they put them in storage: first, the reactor and 2 adjacent compartments (in the bow and in the stern) are cut and towed to the construction of this sediment afloat, then a site is prepared on the shore and pulled out onto it, simultaneously cutting off adjacent compartments. All that remains is to wait.
      5. Motop4uk
        Motop4uk 21 March 2016 17: 08
        +3
        Do not bet, we’ll build even better! )))
      6. Dmitry_24rus
        Dmitry_24rus 21 March 2016 18: 51
        +3
        The shark is indeed recyclable. Because there are no combat-ready and replenished missiles.
        Understand, this is normal, the Russian fleet is being updated. IMHO.
      7. VALERIK_097
        VALERIK_097 22 March 2016 17: 45
        +2
        Couch Soldier: You're definitely a couch.
        Each product has its own service life. And you don’t think that it’s very easy to separate a lightweight case from a durable one. There are places where a person just can’t climb (district pulp and paper mill), this is not a state directive, it’s just the time.
        On the "Nerpa" the division of the 6-compartment block (712z-za) into 2 three-compartment units was successfully carried out. But what kind of hemorrhoids it was, few people know. There was a very big risk - to destroy the PD-42 dock, along with two three-compartment units. cutoffs that could go in different directions. (Do not watch more programs like "The most difficult repair".)
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Sergey S.
      Sergey S. 21 March 2016 17: 16
      0
      Quote: NAV-STAR
      May this cruiser in eternal parking praise the engineer. Glory to the shipbuilders !!!

      I don’t understand everything.
      Do we need titanium for new ships?

      Do our plants need extra orders due to downtime?

      These enclosures may still be waiting for disposal or .... conversion.

      And to load production capacities at the moment should be new ships.
      1. Ze Kot
        Ze Kot 22 March 2016 10: 46
        +1
        Quote: Sergey S.
        I don’t understand everything.
        Do we need titanium for new ships?



        Was there a titanium case?
        1. Sergey S.
          Sergey S. 22 March 2016 21: 46
          -1
          Quote: The Cat
          Was there a titanium case?

          Strong cases - tinanovye.
          1. VALERIK_097
            VALERIK_097 23 March 2016 09: 29
            0
            Who told you such nonsense. Do not trust Wikipedia. Strong AK housing (low-magnetic steel)
            1. Sergey S.
              Sergey S. 23 March 2016 19: 46
              0
              I repent, I bought ...
  2. pellets
    pellets 21 March 2016 15: 01
    +14
    Not old, I would like to say the ship ...... and to modernize under other types of weapons or special submarine is not fate ?????
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 21 March 2016 15: 06
      +6
      Quote: Pellets
      Not old, I would like to say the ship ...... and to modernize under other types of weapons or special submarine is not fate ?????

      there is no money, it’s expensive to remake; the Americans won a lot of greens to remodel their four Ohio SSBNs into an SSGN for each unit.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. FenH
          FenH 21 March 2016 15: 14
          +9
          Quote: FenH
          Quote: PSih2097
          Quote: Pellets
          Not old, I would like to say the ship ...... and to modernize under other types of weapons or special submarine is not fate ?????

          there is no money, it’s expensive to remake; the Americans won a lot of greens to remodel their four Ohio SSBNs into an SSGN for each unit.

          As Cat Matroskin from the cartoon said:
          We have the means. We are not smart enough.

    2. FenH
      FenH 21 March 2016 15: 07
      +8
      Quote: Pellets
      Not old, I would like to say the ship ...... and to modernize under other types of weapons or special submarine is not fate ?????

      Recently I wrote comments on this topic that could be upgraded under "Caliber", about 300 pieces were placed. Only after that conservation (which is more correctly called DEPRECUTION), it is now only for disposal hi
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 21 March 2016 15: 53
      +1
      Quote: Pellets
      Not old, I would like to say the ship ...

      29 years from the date of entry into operation. Since 2004 - in reserve.
      Quote: Pellets
      and upgrade to other weapons or special submarine is not fate?

      Can. At the cost of refusing to build, repair or modernize any of those submarines or NKs that are currently under construction.
    4. VALERIK_097
      VALERIK_097 23 March 2016 09: 39
      +1
      Warranty period of cable routes is 25 years; replacing everything is unrealistic; it’s cheaper to build a new one.
  3. PSih2097
    PSih2097 21 March 2016 15: 03
    +6
    Lightweight body strategic nuclear submarine of project 885 Arkhangelsk after disposal, it will be put up in the Patriot park near Moscow, TASS sends a message from its source to the defense industry complex.

    in the photo TRPKSN project 941 "Shark" TK-17 "Arkhangelsk", and not project 885 "Ash"
  4. Wedmak
    Wedmak 21 March 2016 15: 03
    +8
    And why only the case? Damn, well, they would have made the atmosphere inside the museum. An order of magnitude would have grown in value of such an exhibit.
    1. Gray brother
      Gray brother 21 March 2016 16: 15
      +2
      Quote: Wedmak
      Damn, well, they would have made the atmosphere inside the museum.

      There is already a museum, they will compete, therefore only the building is cheaper and enough to attract visitors. It is not necessary to go to such a museum from Moscow to the Moscow Region.
      1. ydjin
        ydjin 21 March 2016 16: 26
        +2
        Suk, wait, riveting the death star for you.
  5. Valter1364
    Valter1364 21 March 2016 15: 04
    +2
    A masterpiece of carabeling!
    One of the NATO admirals has a mock-up of this submarine project in his office. Envy! soldier
  6. UVB
    UVB 21 March 2016 15: 06
    +3
    And since when did "Arkhangelsk" become pr.885 ?! It's 941 Shark!
    1. skiff-xnumx
      skiff-xnumx 22 March 2016 09: 54
      0
      By the way, "Arkhangelsk" is the project boat 885. The fifth building if I am not mistaken. It was laid in 15 year. And even then it was clear that 941 projects were in metal. And you will be surprised to see the names of boats 885 of the project laid down and planned. It will immediately become clear to you which boats of which projects will go to waste. For example 949 project "Krasnoyarsk"
  7. ydjin
    ydjin 21 March 2016 15: 13
    +1
    Of course I am not an expert, but why would it not be possible to upgrade, re-equip for "Caliber"? That money has nowhere to go? After all, the reactors and the building could still serve the Motherland? Where does this slovenliness come from? Cut out rocket silos and install new ones! Amers can do it, but we slurp bast shoes?
    1. Berber
      Berber 21 March 2016 15: 35
      +6
      Modernization of this type is simple in words only. Cutting the iron is the easiest. The most difficult thing is to change control systems and other electronics. The development of a project alone costs a lot of money. Now, if you leave all the "Sharks" under a single project and equip each with three hundred "calibers", then this is impressive. BUT this is beyond our state's power, and I think it is not necessary.
  8. demchuk.ig
    demchuk.ig 21 March 2016 15: 16
    +2
    It’s a pity, of course, this masterpiece of design thought! I think there are reprofiling options, but it’s easier to cut! The country is rich, we never cut boats and planes!
    1. FenH
      FenH 21 March 2016 15: 18
      +6
      Quote: demchuk.ig
      It’s a pity, of course, this masterpiece of design thought! I think there are reprofiling options, but it’s easier to cut! The country is rich, we never cut boats and planes!


      "Northwind" against the background of "Shark"
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 21 March 2016 16: 49
        -2
        Quote: FenH
        "Northwind" against the background of "Shark"

        They are the same in length.
        1. pv1005
          pv1005 21 March 2016 17: 04
          +1
          Quote: saturn.mmm

          They are the same in length.


          Project 941 The shark is the largest, 172,8 m long. Project 885 The ash is the largest 139,2 m long. The difference is 33,6 belay meters indicates that they are not the same. Well, the rest of the TTD are quite different. hi
          1. FenH
            FenH 21 March 2016 17: 07
            +1
            Quote: pv1005
            Quote: saturn.mmm

            They are the same in length.


            Project 941 The shark is the largest, 172,8 m long. Project 885 The ash is the largest 139,2 m long. The difference is 33,6 belay meters indicates that they are not the same. Well, the rest of the TTD are quite different. hi

            Komarad compared with Borey, so he was not mistaken hi
          2. severyanin
            severyanin 21 March 2016 17: 49
            +3
            Quote: pv1005
            Project 941 The shark is the longest 172,8 m. Project 885 The ash-tree is the longest 139,2 m. The difference in 33,6 meters indicates that they are not the same. Well, the rest of the TTD are quite different.

            Read carefully - we are talking about "Shark" and "Northwind", and not about "Ash"! hi
            But comparing "Shark" and "Borey" in length is like comparing two sticks of sausage of the same length, only one is raw smoked, and the second is boiled :))) wink
            1. pv1005
              pv1005 21 March 2016 19: 25
              +1
              Sorry, gentlemen, good, dulled fry.
            2. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 22 March 2016 09: 52
              0
              Quote: severyanin
              But comparing "Shark" and "Borey" in length is like comparing two sticks of sausage of the same length, only one is raw smoked, and the second is boiled :))

              The Akula's body is almost twice as wide as 23:13.
              It can be compared by the average draft (at design waterline), the "Akula" 11 meters and the "Borey" 10 meters,
  9. mitya24
    mitya24 21 March 2016 15: 17
    +9
    Another symbol of the power of the USSR is leaving. Somehow sad from this at heart.
    1. ydjin
      ydjin 21 March 2016 15: 34
      0
      Americans rearm their Ohio, and we are sawing ?! Supreme Commander, where are we looking? And Sharks, when compared as a potential carrier of weapons? So there is no equal to such a platform in the World!
      1. St Petrov
        St Petrov 21 March 2016 15: 41
        +10
        and Aurora theoretically can be remade for calibers. Where the commander is looking.

        Think outdated, so what.

        1. lelikas
          lelikas 21 March 2016 16: 22
          +4
          Quote: s-t Petrov
          and Aurora theoretically can be remade for calibers. Where the commander is looking.

          Moreover, there are already four shafts under the PU in the form of pipes :)))
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 21 March 2016 17: 19
            +2
            Quote: lelikas
            Moreover, there are already four shafts under the PU in the form of pipes :)))

            There are three pipes on the "Aurora" (project 01917)!

            There were four trumpets on "Aurora" only once - when, immediately after the war, she played "Varyag" in the film "Cruiser" Varyag ".
        2. ydjin
          ydjin 21 March 2016 16: 31
          -1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: mark_rod
          Why write off an almost new nuclear-powered ship? The boats for 50 years have served perfectly ... It would be better if they made a deep modernization and replaced the mines with new missiles ...

          As a result, in 2-3 years we will get a submarine with a service life of 10 years. At the cost of abandoning one of the new Boreis.

          Are you joking? You seem to be non-Russian people? angry and minus in the trash, do not care!
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 21 March 2016 17: 10
            +2
            Quote: ydjin
            Are you joking? You seem to be non-Russian people?

            Ahem ... for you criterion Russianness - Is it a rejection of the new SSBN / ICAPL with a life of 30-40 years for the sake of keeping in service for another 10 years a 30-year-old boat that has stood against the wall for the last 10 years? belay
  10. mark_rod
    mark_rod 21 March 2016 15: 24
    0
    Why write off an almost new nuclear-powered ship? The boats for 50 years have served perfectly ... It would be better if they made a deep modernization and replaced the mines with new missiles ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 21 March 2016 15: 56
      +3
      Quote: mark_rod
      Why write off an almost new nuclear-powered ship? The boats for 50 years have served perfectly ... It would be better if they made a deep modernization and replaced the mines with new missiles ...

      As a result, in 2-3 years we will get a submarine with a service life of 10 years. At the cost of abandoning one of the new Boreis.
  11. Mercenary
    Mercenary 21 March 2016 15: 35
    +9
    Better humpback put up cancer in the park! The people thanked both for the Union and for the nuclear submarine fleet! Sharks were cut because of the missiles that were presented to Reagan in the Treaty!
    1. Lyton
      Lyton 21 March 2016 15: 50
      +2
      This labeled apparently because of hiding in Germany, afraid of national gratitude.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 21 March 2016 15: 57
      +3
      Not Gorbachev, but Yeltsin. And not Reagan, but Kravchuk and Kuchma.
  12. Ros 56
    Ros 56 21 March 2016 15: 38
    +2
    Good thing, though the boys will see what a real nuclear submarine is. Maybe someone wants to become a sailor.
  13. ruskih
    ruskih 21 March 2016 15: 43
    +4
    Let it even be a museum. There will be something to compare.
    1. ydjin
      ydjin 21 March 2016 16: 37
      0
      And I would like to ask from this video, what are the average characteristics of the Typhoon? Another Tanskoe video player with the aim of belittling our Power! , I just hate these impudent USA!
      1. ruskih
        ruskih 21 March 2016 17: 59
        +1
        You probably didn’t hear with what admiration they were talking about this boat.
  14. satelit24
    satelit24 21 March 2016 15: 58
    +2
    There have always been research vessels - why not make a research submarine. Science since the USSR dreamed of such a thing! (only one gets the feeling that someone does not need it)
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 21 March 2016 16: 22
      +1
      Quote: satelit24
      There have always been research vessels - why not make a research submarine. Science since the USSR dreamed of such a thing! (only one gets the feeling that someone does not need it)

      Losharik help them.
    2. pv1005
      pv1005 21 March 2016 17: 09
      +1
      Quote: satelit24
      There have always been research vessels - why not make a research submarine. Science since the USSR dreamed of such a thing!


      Well, why did you only dream?
      "Northerner" - Soviet diesel-electric submarine, pr. 613. Built in 1953, received the designation C-148. In 1957, it was converted into a research vessel and transferred to the All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (VNIRO) on December 14, 1958. The "Northerner", formally owned by VNIRO, actually continued to remain part of the USSR Navy and was served by a military team. Intended for the study of commercial fish clusters and development of methods for their search and trawling. It was equipped with a unique system for visual underwater observations, underwater television, echo sounders and sound finders. It had a special system for stabilizing the depth of immersion (up to 180 m), a system for sampling water and soil in an underwater position.

      In 1958-1966 she made 10 scientific trips to the Atlantic and the Barents Sea with a total duration of 9 months, having traveled 25 thousand miles. Each expedition involved 5–9 scientists (not including the full-time crew of the submarine); In total, 45 scientists participated in the campaigns.
      Withdrawn from the fleet in 1969. Something like this.
      1. KCA
        KCA 21 March 2016 18: 08
        0
        "Losharik", in principle, can also be attributed to scientific research, although in the interests of the Ministry of Defense
  15. flay
    flay 21 March 2016 15: 58
    0
    Yes, sorry symbol of the era, the Great and Mighty State hi
    Just yesterday I read at VO that in a year the content of one AKULINA cost the USSR budget 300 million, this at a cost of $ 1, 60 Soviet, full-weight (backed by gold and other assets of the USSR State Bank) copecks. I am afraid to multiply something at today's rate: USD Central Bank 68,81.
    It looks like our landowners were landmarked, BUT ... at such prices for: Oil 41,51 + 0,12% realized that BOLIVAR would not take it out.
    Apparently, this is why they are finally being removed from the lists of the fleet.
    And such a miracle of engineering thought and the deed of human hands, he takes up the hell !!!
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 21 March 2016 16: 34
      +1
      I will upset you a little, and then comfort you a little wink

      Quote: flay
      Just yesterday I read at VO that in a year the content of one AKULINA cost the USSR budget 300 million, this at a cost of $ 1, 60 Soviet, full-weight (secured by gold and other assets of the USSR State Bank) copecks

      - the dollar exchange rate in the USSR from 1975 onwards was 0.75 rubles per dollar. At the same time, this rate was "drawn", neither in the USSR, nor beyond its borders, it was impossible to buy a dollar at this rate
      - the ruble has never been "backed by gold." Because it was impossible to change the ruble for gold (I don't remember exactly the "gold content" of the ruble, about 1 gram of gold, something).

      Quote: flay
      I’m afraid to multiply something at today's rate

      And it’s not worth it, based on the foregoing. laughing

      Quote: flay
      Apparently, therefore, they are finally removed from the lists of the fleet.

      Not really. There are simply no missiles for these boats. The last P-39 was disposed of in 2012 by the expiration date, and YuZHMASH made them. Which is in Ukraine.

      Something like this yes
      1. FenH
        FenH 21 March 2016 16: 42
        +1
        Quote: Cat Man Null
        I will upset you a little, and then comfort you a little wink

        Quote: flay
        Apparently, therefore, they are finally removed from the lists of the fleet.

        Not really. There are simply no missiles for these boats. The last P-39 was disposed of in 2012 by the expiration date, and YuZHMASH made them. Which is in Ukraine.

        Something like this yes

        One was remade under the Mace, while others could be remade under the Caliber. Only after preservation there is nothing to remake, everything is in the JAM
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 21 March 2016 17: 18
          +2
          Quote: FenH
          One was converted to a Mace, while others could be converted to Caliber

          Let us suppose...

          Quote: FenH
          Only after conservationи there is nothing to remake, everything is in the JUST

          But from now on, in more detail, if can can wink

          In my time, the word "conservation" meant that the technique can be removed from conservation after a while and then used for its intended purpose.

          Is it that I lagged behind life like that, or is this some kind of reservation wrong, or was it something you mixed up? request
          1. FenH
            FenH 21 March 2016 17: 45
            0
            No dear, you did not confuse. So it MUST be, but in fact ... Preservation, as you put it wrong.
            http://igor113.livejournal.com/27205.html так было в 2004,сейчас гораздо хуже hi
            1. Cat man null
              Cat man null 21 March 2016 18: 39
              +1
              Quote: FenH
              Preservation, as you put it wrong

              So. Followed the link, looked. I saw a lot of photos (on one - a cool cat, by the way lol ), and such a phrase:

              Currently, out of the 6 ships released in service, only 3 are in some cunning reserve. They are on the joke and they have, by agreement, MS Gorbachev with the Americans torn out BR control equipment

              Well, so it’s not conservation at all .. the shark just pulled out its teeth request

              Quote: FenH
              it was in 2004, now it’s much worse

              Well, probably .. so these are the boats you want to convert? It's easier to make a new one, IMHO.

              I would write off .. yes
              1. FenH
                FenH 21 March 2016 18: 45
                0
                Quote: Cat Man Null
                Quote: FenH
                Preservation, as you put it wrong

                So. Followed the link, looked. I saw a lot of photos (on one - a cool cat, by the way lol ), and such a phrase:

                Currently, out of the 6 ships released in service, only 3 are in some cunning reserve. They are on the joke and they have, by agreement, MS Gorbachev with the Americans torn out BR control equipment

                Well, so it’s not conservation at all .. the shark just pulled out its teeth request

                Quote: FenH
                it was in 2004, now it’s much worse

                Well, probably .. so these are the boats you want to convert? It's easier to make a new one, IMHO.

                I would write off .. yes


                Now yes, I wrote about this. And the modernization had to be done right away, and not pickled for 10 years at the pier hi
      2. flay
        flay 21 March 2016 17: 47
        0
        Quote: Cat Man Null
        I will upset you a little, and then comfort you a little wink

        Quote: flay
        Just yesterday I read at VO that in a year the content of one AKULINA cost the USSR budget 300 million, this at a cost of $ 1, 60 Soviet, full-weight (secured by gold and other assets of the USSR State Bank) copecks

        - the dollar exchange rate in the USSR from 1975 onwards was 0.75 rubles per dollar. At the same time, this rate was "drawn", neither in the USSR, nor beyond its borders, it was impossible to buy a dollar at this rateyes


        Well, you didn’t really upset me, maybe 75 kopecks. I admit that I was mistaken; I remember something 63 kopecks.


        Quote: Cat Man Null
        I will upset you a little, and then comfort you a little wink

        Quote: flay
        Just yesterday I read at VO that in a year the content of one AKULINA cost the USSR budget 300 million, this at a cost of $ 1, 60 Soviet, full-weight (secured by gold and other assets of the USSR State Bank) copecks

        ",
        - the ruble has never been "backed by gold." Because to exchange the ruble for gold (I do not remember exactly the "gold content" of the ruble, about 1 gram of gold is something)
        Something like this yes


        I do not agree with you on this issue. At any Soviet banknote, after 1961.
        it was just such an inscription. Bank tickets are provided with gold, precious metals and other assets of the State Bank.
        And it was not a Soviet exchange of the ruble for gold, but the fact that the state GUARANTEED the absence of inflation in the society of developed socialism. security weight not specified
        hi
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 21 March 2016 18: 14
          0
          Quote: flay
          At any Soviet banknote, after 1961.
          it was just such an inscription Bank tickets are provided with gold, precious metals and other assets of the State Bank

          I will clarify: on Bank notes (from chervonets and older). Those that were younger were called Treasury notes and were provided with "all the property of the USSR".

          Quote: flay
          And it was not a matter of exchanging the ruble for gold by a Soviet man ...

          Oops ... that’s precisely what this means that the ruble was not really guaranteed by gold.

          You can still begin to compare the gold reserves of the USSR and the approximate ruble mass .. despite the fact that the declared gold equivalent of the ruble is something like 0.9874 grams.

          But it is long and boring. Believe me - well, he wasn’t. And it is written - yes, it was wink

          Quote: flay
          and the fact that the state GUARANTEED the absence of inflation in the society of developed socialism

          The USSR was a "closed" country with a socialist planned economy. That is why there were no crises.

          Here are the rubles:
  16. Professor
    Professor 21 March 2016 16: 01
    +5
    Lightweight strategic submarine project 941 "Shark"

    1. She would still serve and serve.
    2. If we already make a museum, then from the whole (with the exception of the reactor core), and not just from the light body.
    1. FenH
      FenH 21 March 2016 16: 11
      0
      With the return of the Professor! It’s been a long time since you saw who you bet on in the victory in the US election?
      1. Professor
        Professor 21 March 2016 16: 25
        +4
        Quote: FenH
        With the return of the Professor! It’s been a long time since you saw who you bet on in the victory in the US election?

        To United Russia. hi
        1. FenH
          FenH 21 March 2016 16: 27
          -1
          Quote: Professor
          Quote: FenH
          With the return of the Professor! It’s been a long time since you saw who you bet on in the victory in the US election?

          To United Russia. hi

          Well, it’s you who flatter them Professor, they’re not in favor in Russia laughing but an interesting thought, there is something to strive for wink
    2. engineer74
      engineer74 21 March 2016 16: 12
      +2
      It will not fit into the river in Moscow, and apparently there are no other places in Russia ... sad
      With this "Patriot" in general, everyone's roof was blown away - Tsar Cannon, Tsar Bell and Tsar Park, to the heap - all in one copy and only in Moscow! fool And one more thing about the "development" of regions is unforgettable ...
  17. Appius
    Appius 21 March 2016 16: 05
    0
    It has served its term and will now be a museum, i.e. still serve. Not everyone is destined for such a fate. Lucky you can say. drinks
  18. Gunther
    Gunther 21 March 2016 16: 10
    +1
    A good idea, although it was possible to give Paraguay a long-term lease - to increase their prestige among the maritime powers.
  19. ruskih
    ruskih 21 March 2016 16: 14
    +3
    And here about this boat. read the full link: http://www.pravda.ru/society/fashion/models/27-07-2014/1217974-podlodka-0/
    The public organization "Union of Officers" turned to President Vladimir Putin with an unusual request: to consider the issue of conferring the title of Hero of Russia to the commander of the nuclear submarine "Arkhangelsk". The unusualness of the request is that the commander is already retired, and the submarine has long been on the verge of disposal, and it was all 23 years ago. But it was a feat, and what a great deed! ….
    "On September 27, 1991, during a training launch in the White Sea on the TK-17 nuclear submarine, a training missile exploded and burned in the mine. The explosion tore off the cover of the mine, and the missile's warhead was thrown into the sea. ....
    The commander of "TK-17" Captain First Rank Igor Grishkov was completely exhausted in those days. He reported that on September 27, 1991, at a training ground in the White Sea, when a training rocket was launched, it exploded in a mine, the lid of which flew far into the sea. The boat surfaced, and Grishkov, seeing a fireball above the deck, with an urgent dive knocked down the flame with a mass of sea water, after which the submarine surfaced again. With this maneuver, Grishkov saved a nuclear-powered nuclear-powered submarine from an explosion with hellish consequences.
    ...............
    and in February 2004
    Well, the world press has been bypassed by the famous photograph taken aboard the Arkhangelsk: Vladimir Putin in a black submarine cap.
  20. starschina
    starschina 21 March 2016 16: 23
    0
    JUST SORRY !!! such a boat ....
    1. ydjin
      ydjin 21 March 2016 16: 46
      -2
      Quote: starschina
      JUST SORRY !!! such a boat ....

      Could still serve the Motherland ...
    2. Cat man null
      Cat man null 22 March 2016 09: 58
      0
      Quote: starschina
      JUST SORRY !!!

      Sorry - the bee in the ass ..

      Did you read at least one comment before writing? Just honestly?

      And there everything is already written for you already, only you need to find laughing
  21. Oleg Monarchist
    Oleg Monarchist 21 March 2016 16: 49
    +3
    They are being removed because the boat was designed for R-39 missiles, which are not currently being produced and which have been removed from service, especially since the first stage was made at Yuzhmash. To remake it under the Bulava, you need to change the mines and not only, and if this can still be done on a surface ship, then on a submarine, this is very problematic, not a Lego designer, however.

    Some here suggest that "Calibers" should be stuffed into it ... about 300, no less, or maybe you can add 7,62 or 5,45 cartridges from AK, they will fit even more. All adversaries will do themselves out of fear. laughing
    1. FenH
      FenH 21 March 2016 17: 22
      0
      Quote: Oleg Monarchist
      They are being removed because the boat was designed for R-39 missiles, which are not currently being produced and which have been removed from service, especially since the first stage was made at Yuzhmash. To remake it under the Bulava, you need to change the mines and not only, and if this can still be done on a surface ship, then on a submarine, this is very problematic, not a Lego designer, however.

      Some here suggest that "Calibers" should be stuffed into it ... about 300, no less, or maybe you can add 7,62 or 5,45 cartridges from AK, they will fit even more. All adversaries will do themselves out of fear. laughing


      Do you think that three Boreevs were enough at the moment? Instead of they rotting at the pier for 10 years, you had to immediately put them in for modernization. But now Boreev the cat cried, and these were under the knife. Very effective managers !!! Who would pour the brains on you
  22. Oleg Monarchist
    Oleg Monarchist 21 March 2016 17: 05
    -2
    Kozhedub's plane, he killed a lot of Germans on it. And he gathers dust in the museum, well, not any "patriotism". I propose that the "all-propals" add engines from the SU-35 to it, and then we will immediately conquer air domination all over the world. Nemchura will go broke on diapers ...
  23. aleksandrs95
    aleksandrs95 21 March 2016 17: 43
    +3
    It has long been estimated that such an upgrade in 2 new cruisers will cost, and efficiency will be lower. Therefore, the decision was made to dispose of, which is cheaper. And it would be better to create museums in Vladivostok and Sochi, people would blame for such a sight. On the one hand, expensive, on the other, plus anyway would be.
  24. Oleg Monarchist
    Oleg Monarchist 21 March 2016 17: 48
    0
    Quote: FenH

    Do you think that three Boreevs were enough at the moment? Instead of they rotting at the pier for 10 years, you had to immediately put them in for modernization. But now Boreev the cat cried, and these were under the knife. Very effective managers !!! Who would pour the brains on you


    Well, thank God that he poured out your brains immensely !!! Otherwise, the state would have perished. I dare to suggest that "Caliber" is your idea.

    Data on the submarine fleet of the Russian Federation for 14 years, did not begin to search later, but probably they did not change much by the 16th

    14 nuclear-powered ballistic missile ships: 10 in the Northern Fleet (SF) and 4 in the Pacific (TOF);
    9 nuclear submarines with cruise missiles: 4 for SF and 5 for TOF;
    19 multipurpose nuclear-powered ships: 14 in SF and 5 in TOF;
    8 special purpose atomic submarines - all of them are SF;
    1 diesel submarine special purposes - from the Federation Council.
    19 diesel submarines: 2 from the Baltic Fleet (BF), 2 from the Black Sea (BSF), 7 from the SF, 8 - from the Pacific Fleet.

    As for the "Boreyev" - 3 are in service, 4 are under construction and three more are planned before the 20th year. Only 10. "Rotting at the wall" you say? You are probably quite disappointed with the dictatorial government, which stubbornly refuses to report personally to you and "the entire world progressive humanity" about the military campaigns of these boats.

    State how much you think is sufficient and for what purpose.
    1. FenH
      FenH 21 March 2016 18: 04
      0
      From everything described by you, specify how much they can actually perform the assigned tasks, otherwise you and the discussed Sharks have listed laughing At the expense of 10 Boreev until 2020, I liked the joke good
    2. g1v2
      g1v2 21 March 2016 21: 57
      0
      The data on the crew that you gave is incorrect. I advise you to go to the article on the wiki, which is called "List of ships of the Russian Navy." I know the person who made and edits it - he also comes here from time to time, and the information in it is quite correct. If you find reliable information that will differ from the data in the wiki - write, I will give it to him. hi
  25. KCA
    KCA 21 March 2016 18: 05
    0
    How do they want to transport this fool to Moscow time? I saw a long time ago how the submarine was dragged in tow up the Volga, but clearly not the nuclear submarine, and certainly not the "Akula"
  26. Oleg Monarchist
    Oleg Monarchist 21 March 2016 18: 24
    0
    Quote: FenH
    From all that you have described, specify how much they can actually perform the assigned tasks, otherwise you and the discussed Sharks have added to the list: logging:


    I tell you about the "round", and you tell me about the "green". The list given by me is not the number of Boreis, but the number of all types of submarines in service with Russia. Ferstein?


    Quote: FenH
    At the expense of 10 Boreev until 2020, the joke was pleasant: year:


    A person with such an unrealistically large amount of dumped brain could have asked himself by typing in the search "Submarines of project 955" Borey ""

    1. FenH
      FenH 21 March 2016 18: 26
      0
      Quote: Oleg Monarchist
      Quote: FenH
      From everything described by you, specify how much they can actually perform the assigned tasks, otherwise you and the discussed Sharks have listed laughing


      I tell you about the "round", and you tell me about the "green". The list given by me is not the number of Boreis, but the number of all types of submarines in service with Russia. Ferstein?


      Quote: FenH
      At the expense of 10 Boreev until 2020, I liked the joke good


      A person with such an unrealistically large amount of brain sprinkled could be interested in himself. Make your task easier

      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D


      0%B5_%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_9


      55_%C2%AB%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%C2%BB

      Very authoritative link good And there is Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy in the world, the same source laughing

      Read here what to talk nonsense: http: //topwar.ru/91561-smi-v-2020-h-godah-v-sostave-tof-budut-nah
      oditsya-chetyre-boreya.html
    2. FenH
      FenH 21 March 2016 18: 35
      -1
      [quote = Oleg Monarchist] [quote = FenH] From all that you have described, specify how much they can actually perform the assigned tasks, otherwise you and the discussed Sharks have added to the list: logging: [/ quote]

      I tell you about the "round", and you tell me about the "green". The list given by me is not the number of Boreis, but the number of all types of submarines in service with Russia. Ferstein?


      Successful surveillance and destruction of a single SSB requires two US apls. Based on the possibility of counteraction to our anti-submarine forces, the figure is eighteen SSBs for the Russian Federation, this is the minimum amount that can guarantee a reciprocal strike, such a force that the United States will not benefit from such an action. A similar analysis with calculations and calculation of the command of our fleet was ready already in 1998. Someone will say we are arming with us building ships. Since 1998, 2 apr 971 projects have been built (a cheetah and one for India), two have already been written off, and the other is a big question. Since then, only 941 sharks have remained, six boats can go to sea. The destroyers 956, there were five, 1155 were about the same (They can’t be called strike complexes, except for Chabanenko), a nuclear-powered cruiser, we can manage to repair another or even two (I would like), 1 missile cruisers. Three racket guard and Kerch on the Black Sea are available in the museum. Of course, several new 3 and corvettes, as well as frigates 11356, which we still wait, and also boats with hummingbirds, are pleased. Well, Kuznetsov. In general, to make it clear that our fleet is inferior to the American 22350 to 1, this is by the number of really capable ships in the ocean and far sea zones, many will say we have an MRK, but we have almost none and we have a NATO fleet to neutralize them. In general, our prospects will be difficult, so I am calculating 32 SSBs for the Russian Federation, this is ridiculous, this is one division and one brigade, how interesting they will be divided into Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet will be, only one brigade? At best, we can have only three boats in the sea, which is dangerously small. If someone does not agree, I recommend reading the work of Admiral Captain (The Sixth Generation War, as mine is called), a very professional and competent work.
  27. Oleg Monarchist
    Oleg Monarchist 21 March 2016 18: 32
    +1
    Quote: FenH
    [
    Very authoritative link good And there is Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy in the world, the same source laughing


    And what will comfort you? Excursion to the stocks of the plant, or to the Ministry of Defense? Go for it
    1. FenH
      FenH 21 March 2016 18: 37
      -1
      Quote: Oleg Monarchist
      Quote: FenH
      [
      Very authoritative link good And there is Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy in the world, the same source laughing


      And what will comfort you? Excursion to the stocks of the plant, or to the Ministry of Defense? Go for it

      Read my link, you may understand that they wrote funny hi
  28. CRASH
    CRASH 21 March 2016 18: 36
    0
    For such an underwater cruiser, they couldn’t design missiles, they really didn’t build anything, for which we cut ahead of everyone else, maybe we drove the American press ??? The same one.
    1. Dewa1s
      Dewa1s 23 March 2016 05: 16
      0
      The fact of the matter is that this huge oyeaba was built for even more oeyebushny 90-ton rockets, only Soviet generals thought of such insanity.
  29. Oleg Monarchist
    Oleg Monarchist 21 March 2016 18: 38
    0
    Quote: FenH

    Read here what to talk nonsense: http: //topwar.ru/91561-smi-v-2020-h-godah-v-sostave-tof-budut-nah
    oditsya-chetyre-boreya.html


    And how many submarines are written there? The article writes about 8, and the article on VO is an indisputable authority?
    1. FenH
      FenH 21 March 2016 18: 52
      0
      Quote: Oleg Monarchist
      Quote: FenH

      Read here what to talk nonsense: http: //topwar.ru/91561-smi-v-2020-h-godah-v-sostave-tof-budut-nah
      oditsya-chetyre-boreya.html


      And how many submarines are written there? The article writes about 8, and the article on VO is an indisputable authority?


      955 Borey - Submarines of project 955 Borey (according to NATO SSBN "Borei" or "Dolgorukiy" after launching the lead ship) - a series of Russian nuclear submarines of the fourth generation strategic missile submarine cruiser (SSBN) class . The lead ship, Yuri Dolgoruky, is part of the Northern Fleet, the second is Alexander Nevsky, and the third is Vladimir Monomakh as part of the Pacific Fleet. The fourth - “Prince Vladimir” and the fifth - “Prince Oleg” are under construction. Sixth - the Generalissimus Suvorov was laid down on December 26, 2014. In 2011, the plan was announced to build 8 ships by 2018. In 2012, on February 7, the Kommersant newspaper reported that the plan had changed and included the construction of 10 ships by 2020. In mid-February 2012, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Nikolai Makarov denied this information, noting that such a question was worked out, but no decision was made.
  30. Oleg Monarchist
    Oleg Monarchist 21 March 2016 18: 42
    0
    Quote: FenH

    Read my link, you may understand that they wrote funny hi


    When I wrote, you haven’t added your question yet, an addition with a link to VO to your post bully
  31. killganoff
    killganoff 21 March 2016 19: 10
    0
    And I heard that only a part of the light hull will be left from the "Shark" - the superstructure (the fence of the retractable devices).
  32. Oleg Monarchist
    Oleg Monarchist 21 March 2016 19: 15
    0
    Quote: FenH

    Successful surveillance and destruction of a single SSB requires two US apls. Based on the possibility of counteraction to our anti-submarine forces, the figure is eighteen SSBs for the Russian Federation, this is the minimum amount that can guarantee a reciprocal strike, such a force that the United States will not benefit from such an action. A similar analysis with calculations and calculation of the command of our fleet was ready already in 1998. Someone will say we are arming with us building ships. Since 1998, 2 apr 971 projects have been built (a cheetah and one for India), two have already been written off, and the other is a big question. Since then, only 941 sharks have remained, six boats can go to sea. The destroyers 956, there were five, 1155 were about the same (They can’t be called strike complexes, except for Chabanenko), a nuclear-powered cruiser, we can manage to repair another or even two (I would like), 1 missile cruisers. Three racket guard and Kerch on the Black Sea are available in the museum. Of course, several new 3 and corvettes, as well as frigates 11356, which we still wait, and also boats with hummingbirds, are pleased. Well, Kuznetsov. In general, to make it clear that our fleet is inferior to the American 22350 to 1, this is by the number of really capable ships in the ocean and far sea zones, many will say we have an MRK, but we have almost none and we have a NATO fleet to neutralize them. In general, our prospects will be difficult, so I am calculating 32 SSBs for the Russian Federation, this is ridiculous, this is one division and one brigade, how interesting they will be divided into Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet will be, only one brigade? At best, we can have only three boats in the sea, which is dangerously small. If someone does not agree, I recommend reading the work of Admiral Captain (The Sixth Generation War, as mine is called), a very professional and competent work.


    So the SSBN (or SSBN) will be not 8 in total, but 18-19, taking into account the already existing 14. And besides naval nuclear forces, there is also a strategic missile forces, mine and mobile based, plus VKS.
  33. v.komaro2013
    v.komaro2013 21 March 2016 19: 26
    +1
    Several millennia have passed from the first wheel to the caterpillar track, maybe in the near future they will learn to decontaminate right on the spot, without "sediment", then the museum will be SUPER !!!
  34. Old26
    Old26 21 March 2016 23: 20
    +1
    Quote: FenH
    One was remade under the Mace, while others could be remade under the Caliber. Only after preservation there is nothing to remake, everything is in the JAM

    In order to remake it for Caliber, it is necessary that there be at least a concept of using such boats with so many CR. The Americans have converted Ohio boats - platforms that they can use in local wars. With us ... Even when we start talking about aircraft carriers, "showdowns" begin, like, why do we need to fight the Papuans? It's the same with "Calibers".
    - Do not forget that the firing range of "Calibers" with a non-nuclear warhead is about 1500 km.
    - Do not forget that in order to hit exactly the target, it is necessary that the first correction area be on land. Look at the schemes of launches in Syria and at what distance from the Iranian coast were our ships at the launch of the "Caliber".

    Quote: FenH
    Do you think that three Boreevs were enough at the moment? Instead of they rotting at the pier for 10 years, you had to immediately put them in for modernization. But now Boreev the cat cried, and these were under the knife. Very effective managers !!! Who would pour the brains on you

    Three of course is not enough, but the rest are under construction. Now there are 6 more BDRMs and 3 old BDRs, which will be replaced first of all by Boreas. To bet on modernization 10 years ago, of course, could have been (theoretically). But just for what complex?
  35. drunkram
    drunkram 22 March 2016 09: 39
    0
    You can minus, but personally I do not understand why to dispose of such great submarine cruisers as TK-17 and others from Project 941 Shark, well, I just don't understand why this is done and that's it. Why not leave this submarine for other purposes, modernize, replace the "filling" well, at least something. After all, we will never be able to build such ships again. Specifically, I think this is a big mistake and I see a mobile bastion for long and medium-range missiles, both anti-submarine and for striking ground targets, in the Project 941 submarine hull. This is all in conditions when "partners" are pressing on us, and every boat counts. This cruiser can serve for decades more, so why?
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 22 March 2016 09: 46
      0
      Quote: drunkram
      I personally do not understand

      Read the tape (discussion) ..te .. (censorship) .. carefully.

      At least three times yesterday everyone chewed ... how tired of the nightmares, who can not read, damn it.

      I don’t put a minus - it's disgusting negative

      http://igor113.livejournal.com/27205.html

      By reference - photo and description of these boats in 2004. 12 years ago, Karl! There is no need to "modernize" it, it's easier to make a new one .. or even two new fool
      1. drunkram
        drunkram 22 March 2016 11: 19
        0
        it’s easier to make a new one .. and even two new ones

        How and where? No-ver-ryu, 5 meter diesel-electric submarines and a half Caliber on board will rivet, goodbye submarines, hello submarines ...
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 22 March 2016 23: 51
          -1
          Quote: drunkram
          I do not believe

          Damn, did you follow the link? Photos looked, twelve years ago?

          There is nothing to (physically) restore.


          Quote: drunkram
          goodbye to submarines, hello submarines ...

          - ask what they have already "riveted" in the past couple of years
          - ask what "rivet" is now
          - And calm down already .. like children, damn it .. the boat was taken away .. there will be another boat for you, do not worry.
  36. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 22 March 2016 11: 38
    +1
    Well, from a comrade in a slaughterhouse, the skin with horseshoes will be removed and a CHUCHELKO will be hung on a carnation ??? 3 years ago I proposed to remake the Sharks under a floating base PL - uterus (KU, arsenal, tanker, supply, OBE) to create a flotilla - a wolf pack of 5-10 diesel-electric submarines, so that these toothy piranhas would terrorize any AUG or some Qatar or Poland ? The answer of the GVMSh just discouraged me - after model tests, such a formation (flotilla) will die because of "its detection by air defense forces because of the Shark, which will not be able to maximally ensure secrecy - the main weapon of the submarine"? How do you like this passage? And how to ensure the secrecy of an AUG with 1-2 aircraft carriers and 10-30 ships of cover? I still believe that both submarine commanders and their chiefs do not have practical experience of joint evolution of a dozen submarines at the same time. Once, immediately after the war, they tried to carry out such an "experiment" in Sov.Havan with five boats, two of them collided while leaving! Evolutions were in pairs, but not in packs, which is a pity! Putin generously distributes Heroes to submariners, but it is not clear for what - such heroism ?! maybe because they didn't ditch the boat, it's already good