Military Review

Opinion: Why nuclear submarines of the 705 project were not needed by the fleet

275
Nuclear submarines of the project 705 "Lyra" are often called breakthrough and ahead of their time. An alternative point of view leads the captain 1 rank Sergey Topchiev, who served on one of these iconic ships. In thinking about the need to build innovative projects for the Russian Navy, he compares the domestic and American shipbuilding programs and cites the technical specifications of the Lear, for which these submarines went to history.


INSIDE FOREWORD


Much has been written about the 705 submarine. They wrote everything - scientists, submariners, builders of ships. A common leitmotif is a major one, although sometimes the thought of alleged difficulties in exploitation appears. No more.

It is interesting, but in the description of the military equipment of the Cold War period there is always a comparison with similar systems of a potential enemy, usually the United States.

Opinion: Why nuclear submarines of the 705 project were not needed by the fleet

NPS project 705 "Lear"
TopWar.ru


In the materials about 705-m is not. As a rule, the authors describe the possibility of submarine withdrawal from the American torpedo MK-48 due to the high maneuverability qualities of the ship and its power plant. This beautiful legend was born because of the proximity of the speeds of 705 and MK-48. In combat realities, this sweet maneuver is unlikely for one simple reason - the range of detection of our submarines by American times exceeded our capabilities. Therefore, the American commander will not allow the dueling situation, and taking advantage of his advantage, he will take a position on the stern of the attacked submarine and produce a volley.

So why is there no comparison? For two reasons.

First, what to compare? Design, construction and transmission cycle the fleet (as they said earlier: the transfer of submarines to the treasury) dragged on for twenty years. Unprecedented.

Therefore, if we compare at the time stage of the beginning of the design, the object of comparison on the part of the United States will be the submarine of the small series Skate, Sargo, and perhaps also the Triton.

If we turn to the stage of transferring the boats of the 705 project to the fleet (the end of 1970), then the object of comparison is the Los Angeles submarine.

Let us assume that, in anticipation of the duration of the construction, the designers laid down in the project the possibilities of modernization in terms of armament and, most importantly, in secrecy and during construction - the realization of the mentioned possibilities ...

It was not this! There are no such precedents in the practice of world shipbuilding.

Thus, based on the timing of the start of the design (the end of 1950-x and the start of 1960-x) of the submarine of the 705 project should be attributed to the second generation of the Navy submarine of the USSR and compared with the American Skipjack and Tracher.

It is difficult to get rid of the question: why did the ships of this project build so persistently for so long? Try to answer below.

We now turn to the second reason. If we exclude the method of comparison in time and analyze the main features of the project, it turns out that there is nothing to compare with. There was no, no and is unlikely to appear in the US Navy a series of submarines: with liquid metal coolant, a small crew, integrated automation, a titanium case, high-speed and high-frequency electrical equipment and uninhabited compartments, but with tremendous speed and noise. The Americans are building boats for the war, taking into account meaningful national and international experience, the US military-industrial complex does not weigh on the Navy.

Long-term construction of the project has many reasons. For understanding, it is advisable to compare the American and Soviet history of the construction of nuclear submarines.

FROM WHAT THE US NUCLEAR FLEET HAS BEGUN

The US Navy officer (we emphasize this), a native of eastern Poland, Heim Rickover, initiated the construction of nuclear submarines in the United States. In 1954, the first American submarine Nautilus was launched. The epochality of the event was outlined by the commander of the "Nautilus" Andersen, giving an open light a light-chart - "I am going on atomic energy, the nautilus." In this case, the Americans did not fight for the construction of a series of "Nautilus", and in every way tested a new boat. The active participation of the new ship in the fleet exercises, repeated trips to the Arctic zone showed the vitality of the idea and the potentially high combat capabilities of the new technology. Planned the construction program of the nuclear fleet and strictly followed it.


Nautilus First US Submarine
TopWar.ru


For the "Nautilus" was followed by the construction of a small series of submarines (head - "Skate"). In parallel, there was a search for the type of power plant. For this purpose, a "SiWulf" was built with a nuclear power plant (NPP) on a liquid metal sodium coolant, whose operating experience showed the preference of a water-to-water type. Installation "SiVulfa" replaced and more to this issue did not return.

Experimental "Nautilus" was built double hull and bristle, like its predecessors - DPL. The experience gained in its operation, and, above all, the possibility of a long underwater course at high speeds, set the task of creating a new architecture of the buildings of future submarines. For this purpose, an experimental single-shaft diesel-electric submarine "Albacore" was built, the test results of which allowed to form the basic principles for the construction of hulls of promising submarines. At the same time, having convinced of the reliability of a nuclear power plant of a water-to-water type, they abandoned two-reactor and two-shaft power plants.

New cases almost the entire length had a single-frame design, which made it possible to reduce the noisiness of the flow and the level of interference with the work of their own sonar facilities.

At the same time, the buoyancy margin decreased to 14 – 18%. The hulls received a rubber anti-hydrolocation coating (GWP) and a spindle shape with a ratio of length to diameter within 8 – 10. Propeller as far as possible away from the hull, again to reduce noise. In everyday life, the corps was named Albacorovsky.

Already later, and again to improve the working conditions of the gas, torpedo tubes were transferred to the middle part of the body, at an angle to the center plane of the submarine. They did not pursue speed, rightly believing that acoustic stealth and range were more important. Yes, and the resulting thirty knots is enough to solve most tactical tasks. For completeness of the description of the hull, you should add an increase in the diameter of the screw and reduce its speed, again to reduce noise and reduce the cavitation zone.

The next, already full-fledged series of multi-purpose US submarines was built on Albacor technology. The lead ship was called Skipjack. It should be noted that during this period our opponents were also looking for the type of the main engine, for which they built the Tulibi nuclear submarine on full electric propulsion.

The next step of their shipbuilding program is simply elegant, and, again, epochal. Our opponents cut a forty-nine-meter-long missile section with sixteen vertical mines into the Skipjack corps, providing an underwater launch of ballistic missiles. By connecting the submarine, transport nuclear power and a ballistic missile with a nuclear charge, the United States received the third component of the nuclear triad, the most secretive and stable. Already in the fall of 1960, a new missile carrier, named "George Washington", began to carry out systematic combat service in the northern Atlantic and eastern Mediterranean, from where its missiles "took out" the Kremlin. In the future, as new samples appear weapons and armaments, without departing from the Albacorean principles, our likely adversary built new series of submarines, while decommissioning.


NPS "George Washington"
MilitaryParitet.com


One more circumstance deserves attention, again initiated by Rickover, but already by the admiral. This is a differentiated payment for the component equipment to supplier companies: the lower the noise level, the higher the cost.

And completing a brief analysis of the American program, we note once again a fact important in our consideration: the initiator of the construction of the nuclear fleet was an ordinary officer of the US Navy, a low rank, a representative of the engineering, not the command corps of the officers of the US Navy.

Is this possible with us?

And WE WILL GO OUR WAY ...


It all began under Stalin at the suggestion of Soviet nuclear scientists. We emphasize - not at the initiative of the Navy. The latter was kept in ignorance for a long time and only later was connected to the project. Scientists have gone so far that they offered not only nuclear power facilities, but also weapons. A torpedo with a thermonuclear charge more than twenty meters long and two meters in diameter was proposed.

The weapon forms the tactics of its use, which was presented by the authors (among them was A. Sakharov) something like this. The boat approached the coast of the enemy and released a torpedo-monster that was controlled programmatically, approached the coast (preferably to the port) and was undermined, creating giant tsunamis as the main striking factor.

We started designing submarines under the code "project 627".


Project 627, submarine "Leninsky Komsomol"
Submarines.Euro.ru


The gradual connection of the Navy led to the adjustment of the project: the monster machine was replaced with six conventional torpedoes, located in the bow. The letter “A” was added to the code of the project and it became 627А.

Unlike the Americans, Albacores were not built, so it turned out how it happened. The bow tip of the non-stem type is almost Albacor, and the stern tip is completely copied from the two-shaft diesel-electric submarines (project 651). Stern crowned two high-speed screws of small diameter, located in close proximity to the body. The boat was double-hulled along the entire length, the floating stock - more than thirty percent, which adversely affected the noise.

Having a limited operating experience of nuclear power plants (coastal stand), following the principle of “how would something happen”, the installation was made two-shaft and two-reactor.

They started building a series right away. Our first K-3 submarine of the 627 project was launched in the 1957 year, three years after Nautilus. The construction of submarines of the 658 and 675 projects began almost simultaneously. The first one was armed with three ballistic missiles with a surface launch, the second with eight cruise missiles, and, again, with a launch from the surface position. The surface launch determined the architecture of the hulls - both were joint ones. The feed did not differ from the 627A project, except that the 675 project screws were in a protective shell to protect against ice.

At the end of the 1950-s, the design of the second-generation submarines began. Designed three ships. The 667A missile submarine, armed with sixteen submarine-launched ballistic missiles (APLRB), the 671 multi-purpose submarine of the 670 project and the XNUMX APLRK, armed with eight submarine-launched cruise missiles.

The submarines of the second generation turned out to be very successful ships that bore the brunt of the confrontation in the Cold War. All three types were handed over to the fleet on the eve of the Great October Revolution, i.e. autumn 50 of the year. With all the success of the projects, they all clearly lagged behind the US submarines in terms of secrecy and range.

In parallel with the design of the second generation, the design of the 705 project began. It was initiated by a small group of young designers from the Malakhit design bureau, recent graduates of LCI. Everything, as in the case of the 627A project, began without the participation of the fleet.

Shipbuilders conceived a miracle weapon - a small displacement submarine submarine (up to 1500 tons) with a speed of more than 40 nodes, a small crew (no more than 15 people).

The main criteria for the effectiveness of the design were considered high speed and survivability, a great depth of immersion. Constructive support of secrecy was given secondary importance. It was believed that this property provides the fact of immersion.

The author will allow himself to deviate a little from the main topic, devoting a couple of theses to the main tactical property of the submarine - stealth.

Following the release to the ocean, the opposition of the USSR and the USA submarines began. The superiority of the other side came to light quickly. It was provided with less noise and superior sonar weapons. As always, began to catch up. Catch up, upgrading the submarine of the second generation. Given the superiority of the United States in mechanical engineering, they went their own way - by suppressing noise along the propagation paths, and did not disregard its source. In general, fled after more than 25 years. Equalized, taking the third generation nuclear submarines in the fleet, but most importantly - changed the design thinking.

Let's return to the 705 project. Preliminary studies showed the unreality of what was intended in the proposed displacement.

The design balance took place at a displacement of about 3500 tons. In this case, the hull should be titanium, NPI - with high specific energy characteristics, the electrical system should be high-frequency (it was believed that this will reduce the weight and size characteristics), and the crew should not exceed two dozen submariners.

The reduction of the crew required the development of automatic control of the submarine in general and its systems in particular, which led to the emergence of uninhabited compartments. Control over their condition (except the central post) was given to automation and television. The MIC went so far that the designers were exempt from the fulfillment of a number of requirements of the TPLP operating at that time (requirements for designing submarines). Began designing. At the same time, the military industrial complex bit off sweet again - it was designed, in fact, two similar projects 705 and 705К. They were distinguished by the type of NPU and automatic control complex.

DIFFERENCE APPROACHES


Let's leave 705 for the time being and try to understand why the design schools, ours and the American, went in so different ways (which is obvious to the same goal). There can not do without a brief insight into geopolitics and again a brief analysis of the Soviet decision-making procedures for the fleet.

About geopolitics, which explains that civilization develops in dual unity. One part of the nations and the states formed by them are marine, while the others are continental. The first - more passionate, pragmatic. The social ethics of these countries is mobile, the main goal of society is enrichment. Continental countries are less dynamic, the development of society is ahead of the ethical norms of public life.

There is a constant struggle between the parties of dual unity, taking different forms.

Without a doubt, the leading maritime power is the United States, and Russia is firmly on the list of continental powers, despite its political structure. Sea powers are constantly fighting for possession of the ocean, as a transport artery and a source of resources, therefore they are carriers of marine and naval experience, and the mentality of their citizens is marine in nature. Sea nations are capable of quick reaction in cases fraught with the loss of ocean domination. This happened in the battle for the Atlantic in 1939 - 1943. Germany began the war with 43 submarines, of which only a third were simultaneously in a combat position. Forcing their construction and improving the tactics of use, the Germans reached the target by the end of 1942 - they drowned monthly up to 600 thousand tons of trade tonnage. The scale of success will be clear if we recall that at that time a ship with a displacement of 10-15 thousand tons was considered large. England, owning a powerful surface fleet based on a global basing system, could not cope with the German submarine fleet operating alone without any support from other branches of the Navy (surface ships and aviation) Deprived of a systematic supply of raw materials, England was on the verge of a catastrophe.

The English saved two circumstances. First - the Germans began the war with a small submarine fleet. And second, the US entry into the war (December 1941 of the year) with their powerful mobile economy.

If the Germans started a war with a couple of hundreds of boats and capture Iceland (to base them), world history would take a different route (by the way, the Germans did not have naval aviation). But this could not happen, and only for one, but a very weighty reason: the German thinking, including the military one, is strictly continental.

Germany for the war built more 1100 submarines, of which more than 700 died. None of the species (genus) of the armed forces of the country suffered such losses (39 thousands of dead from thousands of 45 operating).

The anti-submarine defense of the Anglo-Saxons was built quickly, they did not spare the means and efforts. In the interests of the antisubmarine defense, escort ships were built, including aircraft carriers, aircraft short-wave radar, new anti-submarine weapons and hydroacoustic stations were created. Intensively developed anti-submarine aircraft and an airfield network based on two continents of the theater. For the first time started installing bottom speakers. Forced the construction of commercial tonnage. Improved tactics antisubmarine defense. Allied intelligence revealed the German submarine communications system.

Due to these efforts, German submarines in the 1943 year were extruded (but not destroyed) from the central Atlantic to the peripheral maritime theaters, including the northern - the Soviet theaters. England resisted, and the Anglo-Saxons - the sea nation, understood the power and capabilities of the submarine fleet, as well as the importance of the means of struggle with a submerge.

And now (attention!), With the advent of the APRB, anti-submarine defense actually acquires the status of US missile defense from the ocean. The current US anti-submarine defense is a large system (in terms of cybernetics), covering space, the ocean and land.

In the postwar period, its buildup went at the expense of the space and bottom segments. Positional means of illumination of the underwater situation are located on the ocean floor, covering vast areas and, above all, torrential zones. The system is crowned by several electronic information processing and control centers for anti-submarine defense forces. Moreover, there is an assumption about the active capabilities of these systems. For example, creating acoustic noise, acoustic curtains, activation of minefields, etc. This is not a fantasy, as a nation with a sea mentality solves the issues of ocean ownership and defense from the oceanic direction.

WHICH FLEET CAN BE READ OCEAN?


The answer is simple, if you understand the basis of the power of the US Navy. And there is no doubt that their fleet is oceanic.

Probably, it will not be a big mistake to consider three factors as the basis of American naval power:
- national maritime mentality, multiplied by American pragmatism;
- the global world-wide system of basing of fleet forces;
- air supremacy in the ocean zone at the expense of ship-based and ground-based aviation.

The remaining components of the fleet are also significant. For example, ship crews, force management systems, supply logistics excellence, etc. But, being updated and improved in time, they rely on the three-factor field indicated above — the basis of the power of the US Navy.

These three factors are the American challenges that the Soviet Union was to respond to when it began to build the Cold War fleet as opposed to the American one. And only having solved this problem, our fleet could become oceanic.

Now a little about the first factor and its connection with the object of our research - the nuclear submarine of the 705 project.

In the first half of 1980, the author accidentally came across a report by Admiral Rickover on the required level of automation of submarines. The essence of the report was the idea of ​​the harmfulness and inadmissibility of excessive enthusiasm for this process. The appearance of the report itself illustrates the presence of discussion in the US Navy on this topic.

The subsequent appearance of the Trident-type APRLB with a crew of more than one and a half hundred souls is evidence of Rickover’s views.

Earlier it was stated that the consequence of the deep automation of the 705 was the emergence of uninhabited compartments and the abandonment of local control posts, a number of important systems and mechanisms. With the start of operation, the wildness of the decision became apparent, and above all - to the crew of the submarine. They began to treat, for which three midshipmen were introduced into the crew - a shift watch, which was called wandering or mobile. The watchman moved through the compartments, assessing their condition visually and organoleptically, that is, did what was before him - several generations of submariners, and what could not be performed by automation and television. Automation is certainly needed, but only where it solves the problem faster than a person, with less expenditure of resources and operations, and also does not create a zone of information uncertainty. The widespread introduction of automatic control systems (automatic control systems) into the project imposed on the fleet by the military-industrial complex had many allies, even in the Naval Academy. In general, visiting 705 was very active. Each visitor (necessarily at a management position) offered something. Class political fighters were amazed at the absence of the political officer and promised to resolve the issue in Moscow (the crew of the boat did not have a political officer in terms of habitability).

Somehow a professor from the Academy Automation Department arrived with a proposal to automate the process of ascent. The assembled ships' commanders explained to the professor that the ascent is an individual maneuver, and, with external similarity, two are not the same. He was offered to automate the search for a part of the network with reduced isolation. But the professor considered the problem of little significance. But this very isolation was the cause of the fires that claimed the lives of many submariners!

There are more examples of the absurdity of deep and non-selective automation. Incomprehensible design concept for the struggle for survivability in light of the same deep automation. We are interested in something else: the American maritime mentality did not allow such a lurch in its underwater shipbuilding, as it happened with us. By the way, on the deceased "Komsomolets" the aft compartments in which the fire started were inspected by the mobile watch, and the fire in the eighth compartment began in the absence of the watch.

Analyzing the first factor it is impossible not to affect the personnel policy of the opposing fleets. The personnel policy of our Navy is practically no different from the royal, which took the established form during the sailing-steam clippers. The main categories of deck service then, with the king, and in Soviet times were officers, sailors, conscripts and warrant officers (non-commissioned officers, conductors). The officers were divided into two groups: command and engineering. The Soviet period added another group - political workers. The lowest caste was engineering, due to limited career opportunities (with the king - on the fact of origin). The damage to the engineering group was particularly evident in the nuclear submarine fleet, where officers-engineers constituted half of the officers. Quite typical was the situation when, through 7 - 8 years of service, a command profile officer reached the posts of a senior assistant, or even a commander, while his contemporary engineer remained at the primary level. This gave rise to a tendency among the engineering staff to leave the deck service and the device ashore. Among other things, the service engineers on the submarine proceeded harder than the officers of the command profile.

The severity of service officers of different categories on board the submarine well characterizes the choice of sailors entering the naval schools from the fleet. The vast majority sought to political workers, someone chose a command profile. The author, who had the opportunity to observe this process for nineteen years, does not remember the case of the arrival of sailors of the sub-melt at the Navy engineering schools.

The compulsory (recruiting) nature of the rank and file service was in clear contradiction with the ever-increasing ship technology. The situation was aggravated by a period of shortened service life.

A significant role in the crews was played by superconsistent servicemen (midshipmen and foremen), who are the bearers of the most valuable experience of the subfloat - cutoff (from the word compartment). Having reached 33 - 35 years of retirement age (a year after two), they left the sub-melt, taking away the most valuable experience.

There was no meaningful motivation system combining moral and material incentives for the crew of submarines.

The emergence of political divisions in the formations somewhere in the middle of the 1970s only strengthened the separation of officers, closing one of the career loopholes for engineers - the transition to political work.

One of the consequences of the mindless work of the personnel bodies of the Navy of the USSR was the accident rate inherited by the Navy of the Republic of Ingushetia.

Analyzing the personnel policy of the fleet, it is impossible to pass by the monoprofessionalism of command-line officers. We will explain. Command profile officers are not rotated between the branches of the Navy, that is, the submariner has never served and will not serve on a surface ship, and vice versa. This "achievement" of the Soviet personnel agencies was rotated in the tsarist fleet. It is difficult to assess the harm caused by such a policy.

By the way, in the US Navy, former pilots command aircraft carriers. In addition, caste artificially lowers the number of candidates for the position of commander of the ship - the central position of any fleet.

Thus, by inertia, personnel work in the USSR Navy led by the commander-in-chief of the ocean fleet was rolling.

The new commander-in-chief, who had previously commanded the Northern Fleet, started a noisy company to increase the prestige of the seafarers, and then it turned out, as always ... The company’s material wake was a badge “surface ship commander” observance of some conditions. I do not know whether this situation has survived to the present.

How this process takes place in the West can be illustrated with the example of a service odyssey of British admiral Woodward.


John F. Woodward (John Forster Woodward), Admiral
Wikipedia


In the Navy - with 13 years. The first officer post - on the basis of submarines. Then - the junior navigator and watch officer of the cruiser in Indochina. Next - courses of logic, administration and business writing. At the end of the course - a miner on diesel-electric submarines in the Mediterranean. After some time, he was appointed as a participant in the courses of submarine commanders, and at the end he was appointed to the commander’s position of a new project under construction. Gains experience with the industry and entering into the line of the new ship. Next - a year of study at the Academy in Greenwich, crowned with a diploma in the design of a nuclear submarine reactor. Then - the submarine commander. The next stage is the head of training courses for submarine commanders. Then transferred to the central unit of the Navy, where he is engaged in planning the development of the Navy. From London, she is transferred to Portsmouth by the commander of the destroyer Sheffield, who is in charge of its commissioning. Again service in the central office of the Navy. In the 1981 year, he is appointed commander of the operational connection of surface ships (at the age of 49 years) and becomes an admiral. Under his command, England won the Falklands War in 1982. So the sea nation prepares shots for war at sea.

The topic can be continued, but the conclusion is already obvious. The American maritime mentality is a safeguard against incompetent intervention in the construction of the country's Navy.

Russia needs a law (or several laws) that exclude the creation of conditions for exclusive management of the construction of the Navy.

Now about the second component of the US naval power - the US Navy's basing system, which includes several dozen naval bases and bases. Moreover, being the leader of NATO, the United States potentially owns the system of air and sea bases of the countries of the vassal members of the alliance.


The largest naval base of the US Navy Norfolk
NationalDefense.ru


The presence of a base in a theater of military operations, if we turn to army terminology, means the pre-emption creation of a fortified area. Long-term basing allows you to master the area (a theater of military operations or part of it), carry out its equipment by means of various purposes, and create the necessary reserves. That is, to do in peacetime what the enemy will be forced to perform in the conduct of hostilities in the theater. An alternative to a land based system was (is) a floating rear. Historical experience shows its ability to fulfill its mission in peacetime. In wartime, it is destroyed by the enemy as a matter of priority.

If you carefully analyze the events of the Second World War in the Pacific, all of its main goals (ownership of supply and commodity markets, as well as transport accessibility) resulted in the struggle for ownership of the ocean-based naval forces and assets. Everything else - the battles of carrier strike groups, the actions of ships and submarines, landing operations - just a form of this struggle.

Emphasizing the importance of the system, one cannot pass by national experience. In 1904 - 1905, the Second Russian Pacific Squadron made an unprecedented transition from the Baltic to the Far East. At the same time, the floating rear solved the minimum task (in the absence of enemy opposition) - the squadron reached Tsushima without loss, but lost (or did not acquire) combat readiness. The result is a national tragedy, the Tsushima defeat.

Now subjunctive. Imagine that Russia would have bases somewhere in the southeastern part of the Asian continent (like England, France and Germany), allowing the squadron to restore combat readiness, to replenish with ships of the first squadron, which broke from Port Arthur after the battle in the Yellow Sea. The threat factor emanating from the new squadron could have led Japan to peace by that time. This did not happen, but the experience remained - our national, Russian, sea and bloody, which the whole world uses ... Except us.

After 60 years after Tsushima, we again played on the old harps - our “ocean fleet” (5-I OPESK) was provided with a floating rear, the ships and vessels of which followed to the provided squadron through three torrential zones controlled by NATO member countries.

And in general, what opposed the Mediterranean OPESK?

Fleets of five states, members of NATO, washed by the Mediterranean Sea, not counting the sixth fleet of the United States, which consists of two - three carrier strike groups. The theater is provided with national navigation systems and the most developed aerodrome network of the world.

What could our squadron do in the event of a full-scale war with non-nuclear means: do some damage to the enemy and replicate Varyag - no more. Who would allow her to engage in antisubmarine activity in the Eastern Mediterranean, especially since in 1970 and 1980, the areas where the American (British, French) APLRB combat service spread to the entire ocean due to the increased range of missile systems.

Did the commander in chief understand all the potential dangers of the current situation? Judging by the further development of our ocean presence, I understood, and a confirmation of this was the appearance in the Navy of the heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers of the 1143 project and, finally, the full-fledged aircraft carriers Riga, Brezhnev and Kuznetsov.

Why is the author constantly returning to the figure of the commander in chief in the topic about the boats of the 705 project? Gorshkov, as a commander-in-chief and an extraordinary person, quickly grew into a sea mentality. Much faster than any figure of the power layer standing above him. By building a fleet, he overcame not only the inertia of land sectarianism, but also ideological dogmatism.

In the list of dogmas of the time: aircraft carriers - the tools of the aggressive militants of the West; military bases in foreign territories are a legacy of colonialism, etc. The commander of the 1955 sample - 1962's and he mid-1970-x - as if different faces. Probably, the “late” commander in chief would not start building the submarine of the 705 project. For him, the time of surrogates has passed.

And, finally, about the third component of US naval power - aviation. Its impact potential manifested itself already in the First World War. Few people know that Russian hydroplanes (prototype aircraft carriers) participated in the attacks of Turkish ports, the adjustment of naval artillery fire and performed other tasks. The Second World War unequivocally confirmed aviation in the status of the main striking force of the fleet. Suffice it to recall the deaths of Bismarck, Hud, Prince of Wales, the Pearl Harbor drama, the air blockade of Sevastopol ... In the post-war period, the United States significantly expanded its combat capabilities. Naval aviation includes aircraft carrier, ground and naval infantry aviation. To understand the strike power of carrier-based strike groups, it is enough to imagine that the depth of its core defense reaches 400 - 500 kilometers, and the area occupied by it with declared dominance is equal to the area of ​​Bulgaria. The aircraft carrier carries aircraft and helicopters for various purposes - from fighters to AWACS. The air group is prepared for the destruction of sea (submarine and NK) and ground targets, as well as solving air defense and missile defense tasks. AUG is the basis of the shock connections implementing tactics "fleet against the coast" at distances of several thousand kilometers. The importance of naval aviation in armed struggle is so obvious that the author considers the further narration about it to be superfluous.

WHEN NOVELTIES GO IN HARM


The foregoing was a necessary basis for understanding the circumstances and conditions in which it was conceived, designed, built and operated by the submarine of the 705 project.

In the world practice of design, there are at least two well-established patterns of international character:
- any new design is based on a prototype, that is, a previously existing machine, structure or device;
- in the designed object, no more than 10-20% subsystems are updated. This is done under the terms of security and for economic reasons.

The abundance of novelty delays the commissioning of the entire volume, leading to a significant loss of liquidity at the construction stage. The second entirely relates to the submarine of the 705 project, which is striking in the number of innovative solutions in the design of the ship.

In addition, the organization of the crew service and the form of maintenance were subjected to a drastic change. Innovations have set new tasks for accessory companies, of which there were over a few hundred. All this was the main reason for the protracted project.

In the course of the advance project, we were faced with the impossibility of fulfilling the flooding requirements of the Navy, which directly depends on the buoyancy margin. The Navy demanded to provide surface flooding in the flooding of one compartment and two adjacent tanks. With a small number of compartments (a variant of a three-compartment submarine with the same number of main ballast tanks was originally considered) this is impossible. The output was found in the six-sectional version with an increase in the number of tanks to 11. At the same time, the buoyancy reserve retained more than 30%.

What is so bad a large reserve of buoyancy? The larger it is, the greater the amount of water between the hulls, figuratively speaking, “lucky” submarines underwater, spending part of the engine power to move it. This circumstance is quite tolerant on diesel-electric submarines with their low speeds underwater. With an increase in underwater speed (with the advent of a nuclear submarine), a large reserve of buoyancy, structurally implemented through a two-hull structure, leads to an increase in the noise of the body flowing by the oncoming flow of water, vibration excitation of light hull structural elements, and, no less important, interferes with the operation of its own acoustic systems .

In the USA, starting with Skipjack, they went to the single-hull version without being confused by the loss of a buoyancy margin of up to 12 - 14%, that is, without having secured surface and underwater flooding.

Far from the originally conceived, but still relatively small displacement achieved due to:
- replacements of case steel with titanium alloy;
- NPI installation of high specific power (149 MW) with liquid metal coolant;
- crew reduction due to deep automation and centralization of the management processes of nuclear power plants and submarines as a whole;
- transfer of electrical systems to a higher frequency (400Hz);
- reduce the energy intensity of the backup source of electricity;
- simplify the system of immersion - ascent;
- refusal to duplicate the responsible systems;
- lack of local control posts;
- combining traditional separation systems;
- transition to direct-flow shut-off valves instead of the traditional one.

Therefore, it is far from a complete list of innovations, it is clear how the designers and customers deeply ignored the international design experience. The result is known: they started designing in the 1958 year, and received the first boat of the Navy in the 1977 year (K-123 705K). Total - 19 years! The appearance of "K-64" (the head of the 705 project) in Western Person in 1971 in the year cannot be called a transfer to the fleet - the submarine was in disrepair.

Now more about the innovations. The case of titanium alloy posed several rather difficult problems. Titanium is electrochemically passive, therefore any metal, black or colored, in seawater together with it plays the role of a protector. The first titanium submarine (K-222 of the 661 project) quickly "ate" the steel melt pier due to electrochemical corrosion.

To get out of the situation, the pier was replaced, and ocean fenders and zinc protectors were installed between the boat and the pier.

For fifty days of combat service in the North Atlantic (water temperature not more than 2 ° C), titanium managed to completely “eat” the metal braid of outboard cables, steel protectors. There was a leak of the steel periscope stem. Titan easily identified factory marriage. It should be noted, and the complexity of the welding of titanium - only in an inert gas environment, which, of course, complicated the repair work, including inside a solid case.

Shipbuilding is an integrating industry. Often, by their own demands, it is necessary for estimators to master new technologies and materials. The titanium industry, which now supplies the aviation industry, including the foreign one, is obliged to melt under its own birth. Sitting in a Boeing or Airbus, remember that he relies on a chassis made from Russian titanium.

From positive it should be noted the absence of rusting.

Now about nuclear power plants with liquid metal coolant and steam generators with multiple forced circulation.

Both installations differed by the increased complexity of the thermal circuits and the composition of the component elements. Usually, the declared advantage of such a technological solution is the ability to set up a quick access to power from the storage position. How this “storage” looks like is somehow silent. In any position of a NPP - working or deactivated - an alloy, the crystallization temperature of which is about one and a half hundred degrees, must be in a liquid state. In the workplace, it is understandable, and in the removed state, maintaining its temperature was provided in one of three ways: by dividing the reaction, by steam from the base, or by operating an electric boiler with a capacity of several hundred kilowatts. They tried everything, but stopped at the fission reaction, as the least dependent on coastal sources of steam and electricity. This meant the actual keeping of the watch in the database and the unproductive consumption of the resource of the installation itself.

The arrival of K-123 to the place of permanent deployment revealed a blatant unpreparedness of the base. Of all that was needed, there was the possibility of supplying electricity at the required frequency. The problem of steam supply from the base was solved on the move with the help of a concrete floating bar with two boilers. Boilers themselves are a serious and potentially dangerous structure in the hands of amateurs.


Parking Submarine Ave 705
Coollib


The coolant of the contour of the alloy was capricious. Reacting with hydrogen and oxygen, the alloy formed oxides, which changed the conditions of heat removal from the fuel elements, which led to the destruction of the active zone. The source of hydrogen and oxygen in the alloy circuit was oxides of the structures and the water of the secondary circuit, which gets there through leaks, since the pressure in the secondary circuit exceeds the pressure of the alloy.

In 1968, for this reason, a severe nuclear accident occurred at K-27, the first Soviet nuclear submarine with a liquid-metal coolant.

The submarine was disabled, nine people died of radiation sickness. Surprisingly, after this accident, the submarines of the 705 project under construction at that time were not provided with instrumentation or laboratory monitoring devices for the quality of the coolant.

Restoration of its quality was carried out only under basic conditions; the process itself was called high-temperature regeneration. The operation was carried out not even by industry, but by science in securing the fleet. The process involved the circulation of the alloy with an inactive reactor, so steam was supplied from the “fifty kopeck” boilers (the 50 project guard), the feedwater leaks of which were simply amazing.

The nuclear accident at K-27, the appearance of the second generation nuclear submarines and the construction of the 705, which were clearly identified at the end of the 1960, could have served as a basis for the collapse of the project. Moreover, they had information about the refusal of the Americans from "SiWulf." But the construction did not stop. Why? There was a responsibility, but who needs it? The leadership of the fleet is clearly not, the generals from industry and science all the more! The expenditure of funds and resources of various kinds is simply colossal, and the grandfathers of the party control commission are still charged by Stalin. In order to avoid a scandal, they went the "natural" way: they reduced the series, put the boats under construction, and the boats seemed to have grown old and went to needles. And the sheep are fed and the wolves are whole.

Turbine delivered no less trouble. The relatively short length of the main steam lines and the high temperature of the steam led to a breakdown of the main valve gaskets (due to insufficiently thought out compensation for thermal expansions). Gasket replacement is a tremendous job associated with dismantling valves and associated equipment.

The struggle to minimize displacement led to the replacement of the usual turbine oil for aviation, which has a high rate of circulation. Aviation oil in anaerobic conditions turned out to be toxic. Turbinists have skin problems. Some big naval doctors came: they measured, discussed, were surprised, were indignant and ordered that they would not remove respirators in the turbine section.

The lack of regular service personnel in the crews and a long stay in isolation from active units visibly changed attitudes in the officer corps, reducing the usual distances.

Originally planned crew somewhere in the 14 - 15 submariners. Life made adjustments, and the boats went to sea, having a crew in 32 man. At the same time, the need for an increase existed, but could not be realized according to the conditions of habitability, since possibilities of electrochemical regeneration of the air environment have been exhausted.

The crews of the project were distinguished by their originality, especially those that were formed first and staffed with the best graduates. The service was conceived on a velvet model: a town somewhere on the Karelian Isthmus, then a helicopter, a plane, again a helicopter, and finally - a board of a miracle ship, exchange of signatures with a technical crew, two months of ocean ownership and then everything is in the reverse order. We studied for a long time in various design bureaus and institutes, being in status if not cosmonauts, then somewhere close. Gradually life landed. Yesterday's fellow students at the school went up the corporate ladder, and the end of the construction of the boat was not seen. Career went out, children grew up. Change the location of the service is not allowed. True, for the first crews, all officers were promoted to a higher level. Calmed, but not enough. It is not clear why, but the officer positions were called not by the statute, but by themselves. The commander of the group was called the engineer. The division commander is also an engineer, but senior. The commanders of combat units are deputy commanders. Why this was done is not clear, except in the name of innovations as such.

Anyone, somehow connected with the subdivision, is clear and obvious the importance of the watch engineer-mechanic. The organization of the service on the analyzed project of this figure did not provide - too much. Like, automation will replace everything. It is interesting how the authors thought the submarine control, for example, in the surface position, when the watch officer on the bridge and is completely occupied by the surface situation?

Automatics did not provide the tactics adopted and determined by the current leadership in the struggle for survivability and, moreover, introduced information uncertainty in the assessment of the emergency. For example, in one of the uninhabited compartments the starter coil will burn (ordinary situation) with significant smoke without increasing the temperature in the compartment. How does the central post identify the very fact of the fire and the degree of danger of the situation? Either smoke will be detected on the ship's TV, or a mobile watch (initially not at all conceived) at the entrance to the compartment will detect and report on the fact of smoke. Other information just will not. The room is uninhabited. The central post is obliged to launch a fire extinguishing system, and then organize reconnaissance, ascend, and provide ventilation to the atmosphere. This increases the likelihood of loss of stealth, and in wartime - death. With the combat effect, according to the experience of the Great Patriotic War, the flow of water, the occurrence of fires is possible ... Only vigorous actions of the emergency party allowed to quickly localize the situation and save the ship. A huge role in efficiency is played by the psychological factor, for which it is necessary to maintain communication between the emergency compartment and the central post. The absence of a constant watch in the nuclear submarine compartment (at any level of automation) creates an information vacuum that does not allow promptly localize an emergency situation and minimize its consequences. The game of automated uninhabitation - one of the main causes of the tragedy "Komsomolets".

The authors of the idea of ​​being uninhabitable can only be understood under one condition - the submarine of the 705 project was originally designed as a disposable ship. There is no other logical explanation.

And the last one about the automation of the struggle for survival process. It can not be automated. Need to go the other way. By creating an effective toolkit to help staff. Under the toolkit should be understood diagnostic systems, computerization of calculations of the current state of stability, buoyancy and much more.

Increasing the frequency of the current electrical system is one of the main differences of the analyzed project. Neither before nor after the world practice of shipbuilding is not aware of this. Innovators believed that by doing so they would reduce the weight and size characteristics of power electrical equipment, including by abandoning the mass of transducers supplying weapons and armament complexes.

On the basing, stealth and reliability of the electrical complex, the designers did not know or did not consider the design object.

Two types of drive motors were used on the boat - the AFM and DFV series. The parametric series of the AFM series covered the power range from 15 kilowatts and above. The DFV series has been used in the low power range. The AFM engines had water cooling in the stator zone, so that all the mass and weight savings were quite conditional, increasing due to the pumps, fittings and heat exchangers of the cooling system. Drive motor speeds increased to 6000 revolutions (synchronous). The increase in speeds has dramatically affected the reliability of the bearing assemblies (especially for drives with axial loads) due to the failure to take any constructive measures to improve their reliability.

There were no devices for diagnosing the state of bearing assemblies. The node failed an avalanche in an hour and a half: from the appearance of the first personnel diagnostics available (mobile watch) for signs of abnormal work to its sintering (hardening). As a rule, it was not possible to use the puller without dismantling the engine, and more often, the associated equipment. Later, experience came, the replacement of bearings was simplified, but the problem remained until the redemption of the miracle ships. Significantly increased the mass of the reversible converter due to the multipolarity of the synchronous machine. Bearings did not get rid of the ills of their predecessors.

New was the blower of the system of mechanical mixing of the electrolyte, allowing not to use medium pressure air and, therefore, not to create excessive pressure in the edema. It was very noisy, so it was rarely used. There were failures of voltage correctors of autonomous turbine generators associated with cracking of the epoxy casting array. The complete surprise was the explosions of onboard power connectors from the shore due to internal short circuits. Attempts to avoid short circuits by separating the phases of the connectors led to the heating of the robust case due to uncompensated high-frequency magnetization reversal.

Natural ventilation of the battery was not provided due to the presence of the downstream section of the exhaust duct. The low-power DC fan was absent, so an AC fan was used continuously. VDK consisted of a static frequency converter (400 V ~ IF, 50 Hz) and two asynchronous propeller motors located in nacelles on the ends of the horizontal tail unit. Both HELL (100 kW) worked on two-blade propellers of fixed pitch - "stop" and "move". Spread blades carried ship hydraulics. HED had frequency regulation speed. Under the HED and the exhaust flow of the circulation routes, the boat developed a course of up to five knots (with a flap on the exhaust, the jet could be directed perpendicular to the board, the "stop" position).

The inverter was a massive water-cooled installation, rather unreliable. The smooth adjustment of the revolutions of a sufficiently low-power HED wore a far-fetched character; it could have been completely replaced by a two-speed asynchronous motor.

Instrument information of the control panel of the electrical system was quite peculiar. The megohmmeter, for example, showed values ​​in the range from 0 to 200 kOhm, which did not allow to reveal the tendency of isolation change and to take timely measures to increase it. An interesting was the decision on the remote control of feeder machines of the main switchboard.

A low-power static converter was used to power general-purpose household consumers (electric razors, film sets, etc.).

It should be noted that the increase in the number of revolutions of autonomous turbogenerators and powerful drive motors made the vibroacoustic characteristic of the submarine of the 705 project very individual and greatly simplified the identification of the enemy. Thus, the transition to an increased frequency proved to be unjustified. Could personnel have done anything besides increasing the acoustic culture actively introduced into the practice of the sub-basement in the 1970s and 1980s?

If we take into account that the military-industrial complex has achieved 300% overhead in the production of many types of military equipment, then you can imagine how much the cost of implementing the high-frequency idea of ​​the power grid of the project turned out.

Eh, where were the grandfathers-Stalinists from the party control commission at the Party Central Committee ?! And if they also understood the problems of the sub-basement, like cavalry ...

The itch of innovation has not bypassed rebar designers. Instead of the usual and long overdue stage of childhood diseases, a new, so-called direct flow appeared. Now the valve stem was not perpendicular to the flow of the working environment, but parallel. As a result, the rare valve provided a medium cut-off. In order to estimate the scale of the consequences, we will present the procedure of any repair in the campaign. Well, for example, replacing gaskets on some steam line. Preparing tools, materials, personnel. But the main thing is that all the repairs and the disconnections (switching) associated with it do not lead to a loss of travel, disruption of the operation of weapons and armament complexes. And this happened, and often. Finally a solution is found. In especially difficult situations, combat (training) anxiety is declared. The execution starts and it turns out that the working environment does not turn off due to the valve's leakage (valve, clinker) ... Everything begins anew, often according to a potentially dangerous scenario.

The lowest level of reliability of the 705 submarine technical equipment, most of which did not pass the life test, doomed the small crew to endless repairs, making the service difficult, especially in the electromechanical warhead. No less burden fell on the technical crew. About him in more detail.


705 submarine
Military Review

The adoption of an aviation model for servicing 705 boats is another contrived innovation. It was thought that the entire inter-stepping period to restore the combat readiness of ships engaged in technical crew, and the crew of the boat (in the naval jargon - swimmers) in this period is resting, and then restores skills in the training center. The idea was not justified for a number of reasons, so 705-I was transferred to the second crew, the carrier of linearity, who, together with the technical crew, implemented inter-forward stage activities, providing a given combat readiness. The technical crew was a large separate military unit with its own number and seal. Long formed, and in the absence of ships unoccupied with the main purpose, it turned into a source of work force and inexhaustible traveling reserve for superiors.

With the advent of the ships, the technical crew switched to performing basic functions, and then its structural mismatch manifested itself - the lack of personal attachment to the ships, mediated responsibility and much more, which is always the result of flaws at the design stage. In fact, the manual and the electromechanical service of the connection controlled the manual technician, leaving him in charge of the issues of everyday life and socialist competition. Understanding the need to restructure it came quickly. It was planned to divide the technical equipment by the number of boats and deprive the status of a separate military unit. The first succeeded, the second - did not take place because of the unwillingness of personnel bodies. But this is another story.

SEVEN NANNER ...


Interest in the project at the command of all levels quickly evaporated. The boats of the project, by virtue of the previously stated circumstances, could not master new areas of combat service, introduce something new into the tactics of confrontation with a likely adversary, and be in ice-fishing for a long time. They were used in the North Atlantic, closer to the base.

The apotheosis can be considered 1981 the year when the mass rewarding of the epic participants took place. On the compound, which bore the brunt of the project, "fell" a little more than a hundred award signs (9%).

Then began a smooth sunset. At the beginning of the 1990-x all boats, except for K-123 (was under repair), were decommissioned. Operation of the 705 project by the fleet has developed a persistent allergy to nuclear power plants with a liquid-metal coolant. This is the main lesson of more than thirty years of the epic. What Americans have come to in a few years, we walked for three decades. Now it is again proposed to use liquid metal as a coolant. Danaans, carrying this idea, assure of the problems solved. Well, for example, biological protection will become a heat accumulator, and therefore, they say, buyers (fleet) will not have problems with basic support, etc.

At the same time, the design and implementation of such a complex engineering structure as the submarine of the 705 project should be considered as an undoubted achievement of the Soviet scientific and design schools, high potency of the Soviet defense industry. There is no fault of the engineers that their efforts were directed by officials away from common sense. The analyzed project should be considered encyclopedic already because its operation by the fleet has confirmed or refuted various kinds of design and organizational ideas that have previously only a theoretical justification.

Another lesson of the epic: extraordinary weapon systems (such as the 705-I submarine) must be designed in complex with the elements of the basic support. The latter should be built and developed proactively.

For the crews, the development of the project was a real engineering school, which taught many to solve complex non-standard engineering tasks.

From the position of the present, the low status of the Navy as a state institution in the 1950-1960-s of the last century is obvious. The latter was unable to form and defend the holistic concept of the necessary boat, and in many respects he went on about the various structures of the military-industrial complex, which proposed a miracle weapon. Or was it necessary for someone?

I stress once again: the strength of the fleet is not in some kind of miracle weapon, but in the interconnected use of its forces to achieve a real goal.

Let's go ahead and ask ourselves a question: was a submarine under construction for twenty years a surrogate or a full-fledged warship?

Reply impossible. Her life cycle began and ended in the interwar period. However, it is necessary to ask this question for one simple reason - so as not to repeat the epic of the 705 project. Without losing the meaning, but moving away from the term surrogate (if someone is offended), the question can be put differently. And is military hardware a full-fledged one, which takes two decades to build in an environment where a generation change of IT occurs every three to five years? The answer is for the reader.

Today the recovery in matters of attitude towards the fleet is obvious. There were a lot of different movements in support of the fleet, as a rule, led by former political workers, the media are filled with reports of new naval weapons. How to be a fleet?

The old conventional wisdom that obsolete military theories are worse than obsolete weapons now, at this crossroads, is again relevant. Will the lessons of building the ocean fleet of the USSR be taken into account, and if so, which ones? Will the obvious tactics of NATO fleets against the "coast" that have become typical in recent decades be taken into account?

A few words about the lessons of the Soviet Navy.

First of all, as already noted, it is necessary to adopt a legislative framework for the fleet precluding incompetent decisions at the state level.

The personnel policy of the fleet needs revision and updating. It should be understood that in this direction laid a huge potency of the fleet combat readiness. The change in personnel approach will require changes in naval education and the status of the crew.

The high accident rate of the fleet during the Soviet era was simply blunted. The fight against accidents was an imitation, and its forms sometimes became anecdotal. For example, the line from the socialist duties of any sailor sounded like this: not to have accidents and breakdowns of the material part of the headquarters through their own fault.

Emergency never engaged seriously. Back in 1980-s, the term “social” sounded dissident, but the roots of accidents are social and it does not matter at what level - the design, command or operational conditions will be created, the consequence of which will be an accident or a disaster.

Accident product of the activity (inaction) of people. It is inherent not only to the fleet, but also to other high-tech industries - energy, aviation, etc. Accident is international. Fighting it is one of the main areas of operation of engineering systems.

Thousands of scientists - candidates and doctors of science worked in various research institutes, schools and instances of the fleet. If you try to find at least one dissertation work on accidents, you will be disappointed - you will not find. Why?

A serious analysis of the causes of accidents inevitably led to system defects, that is, to the zone of ideological taboos. The lack of a scientific approach to the study of the phenomenon of accidents led to the replication of emergencies in the Soviet fleet.

It is impossible to ignore the behavioral motivation of the personnel of the submarines and the headquarters of the formations. Its essence is infinitely simple - to hide the fact of an accident (accident, breakdown), and if this is not possible, then in the report to reduce the negative consequences. On this wave followed the General Staff of the Navy and the optimistic reports of the commanders of emergency submarines, which are clearly inappropriate to the situation. Rare information on any accident corresponded to the actual course of events. At best, it was a half-truth.

The recovery of state institutions that took place, the appearance of financial resources for the country's defense institutions again raises the question: what should the fleet be like?

In fact, this is a shipbuilding program. In our history there were several. Particularly memorable are post-Susum and Soviet.

Any shipbuilding program is always very costly and long-term. It should take into account geopolitical forecasts, the current state of the fleet, the level and forecasts of the development of science and economics, and a host of other factors. In the current situation, under these other factors, we, first of all, should understand the fact that our fleet is long, or rather 70 years old, did not take part in hostilities. This is the danger of influencing the formation of the program of the Soviet admiral corps, brought up in peacetime on the idea of ​​the "ocean" fleet of the USSR. The situation, in our opinion, is aggravated by an inadequate understanding of the nature of the fleet as one of the national defense institutions on many floors of government. The combination of these factors, multiplied by the appetites of the MIC, will give such a synergistic effect that we will lose both the fleet and the treasury. The call has already sounded: after the refusal of France to transfer "Mistral" media filled with messages about the design of a nuclear aircraft carrier for the Navy. MIC launched a marketing attack. The authors of the idea are far from understanding what needs to be done in order for the carrier strike group to be ready to solve any military tasks based on this aircraft carrier. Significant investments will require the space, aviation and ground segments to ensure its activities. The ship composition of the aircraft carrier defense zones must be equipped with nuclear power, in order to possess a single tactical property, otherwise high-speed tankers must be introduced into the group. The provision of air defense and missile defense will require the creation of DRLO complexes deck-based and so on ...

The question arises, do we need aircraft carriers? Are we going to regain Alaska? Protect the colonial territories? Have you resolved a set of issues for guaranteed protection of patrol areas of submarines armed with ballistic missiles? We built positional systems in the torrential zones of our inland seas that exclude the actions of a potential enemy there? We want to disrupt the shipping of the enemy in the Atlantic?

Do we have the potential capability of the USSR economy and bring the number of carrier-assault groups to the American indicators?

The author does not know how the shipbuilding program of the renaissance of the Russian fleet is formed, but he is well aware that in the absence of a sea mentality at the top of state administration, the low authority of the Navy command, the extremely high activity and adventurism of the military-industrial complex, the shipbuilding program, to put it mildly, may not be the same which the country needs.

It is desirable that the developers of the program took into account several circumstances:

1. It is necessary to develop and establish, in accordance with the established procedure, a set of legislative measures to protect the Navy from incompetent decisions of any level;

2. The ocean zone is inhabited for a long time and very solidly by a probable adversary. Trying to compete with him means doing another imitation;

3. The need for a steady build-up of naval strategic nuclear forces. Ensuring the complete inaccessibility of enemy patrol areas;

4. The fleet is not only the ship structure, aircraft, and the BRAV and MP. These are also active bottom passive positional systems;

5. Establishment of the defense zone of the hospitality zone in the sea (ocean) and its continuous increase as the program stages are implemented;

6. The organization of the missile defense system (air defense) ship-based on rocket-prone areas Its integration into the missile defense system of the Ministry of Defense;

7. Reorganization of personnel policy of the Navy.
Author:
Originator:
http://flot.com/2016/Вооружение30/
275 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. ,
    , 5 June 2016 18: 33
    +83
    Article bomb! In a good sense of the word)! Russia hold on! We are for you!
    1. ,
      , 5 June 2016 18: 43
      +4
      am what is minusinsk for?
      1. dmi.pris
        dmi.pris 5 June 2016 18: 59
        +27
        Well, probably for the truth .. Avengers appeared here .. Maybe someone didn’t like the flag .. But in general, do not pay attention to this, the article is wonderful ..
        Quote: andre
        am what is minusinsk for?
      2. poquello
        poquello 5 June 2016 19: 31
        +1
        Quote: andre
        am what is minusinsk for?

        it’s written for academics, I’m stupid, I put a minus, something about the frequency, something about isolation, and in the end, we fools chased speed and depth
        1. FREGATENKAPITAN
          FREGATENKAPITAN 5 June 2016 20: 05
          +3
          Quite right ... many types of smart beeches ... It's simple - the excellent boats of Alpha (705) ruined the 90s, and there is no need to invent anything else ... And not only LMT (they are) ruined ... . a lot of good things have gone during the period- ... "All friends are around .. and I'm drunk!"
          1. sir_obs
            sir_obs 5 June 2016 20: 44
            +42
            Yes, not only 90,
            Even if you take the simplest diesel boats, they still beat charging in the base with their diesels, wasting motor resources. They replenish the air at the expense of their diesel engines and electric generators, which does not add to them the established service life. And they should all receive it from the coast, centralized, so to speak.
            There are probably a lot of motorists on the site and everyone understands what timely maintenance and operating rules established by the manufacturer are.
            So even today, they are not performed for ships and submarines. The base points are not equipped with everything necessary for operation according to the standards established by the manufacturer. The result is appropriate. The problem here is somewhat different.
            1. avg
              avg 5 June 2016 22: 51
              +3
              Quote: sir_obs
              The base points are not equipped with everything necessary for operation according to the standards established by the manufacturer.


              At least for the submarines, things have moved. The bases for nuclear submarines in Novorossiysk and for nuclear submarines in Kamchatka are already fully compliant. A lot of work is going on at KSF.
              1. spravochnik
                spravochnik 6 June 2016 09: 58
                +2
                Quote: avg

                At least for the submarines, things have moved. The bases for nuclear submarines in Novorossiysk and for nuclear submarines in Kamchatka are already fully compliant. A lot of work is going on at KSF.


                Not only for submarines. In Baltiysk, the entire mooring front is being rebuilt with the modernization of the entire infrastructure.
          2. NordUral
            NordUral 5 June 2016 21: 24
            +9
            No, engineering solutions and metal coolant are too complicated. And the style of leadership and decision-making (but this style has nothing to do with Stalin, the author confuses).
          3. Simple
            Simple 5 June 2016 21: 55
            +6
            "It's simple"
            I am happy to read your article a refutation, preferably with the same weighty arguments!
            ?
          4. Rus2012
            Rus2012 5 June 2016 22: 42
            +4
            Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
            That's right .. a lot of type of smart beech.

            ...that's for sure! And, as it were, "the look of a trench lieutenant" on the course of the entire war. Of course, there are many "bitter pills" in his eyes, which must be known and conveyed to industrialists and top management. From this point. the article is interesting.
            But by no means lieutenants will solve large-scale state tasks of strategic planning of the country's defense in the oceans.

            Quote: Author S.V. Topchiev
            US military-industrial complex does not dominate the Navy

            /// the author would try to prove this thesis at least ...

            And about -
            The author does not know how the shipbuilding program of the renaissance of the Russian fleet is formed (it is not clear why the caperanga, albeit an outstanding one, is allowed to take a DECISION OF THE STATE LEVEL, it seems that it is enough to listen to it among the OTHER no less gifted), but he understands well that in the absence of a maritime mentality at the top of government, the low authority of the Navy command, the extremely high activity and adventurism of the military-industrial complex, the shipbuilding program, to put it mildly, may not be the one that the country needs.

            It is desirable that the developers of the program took into account several circumstances:

            1. Development and establishment of a set of measures by the established procedure are necessary legislative measures to protect the Navy from incompetent decisions of any level; (this is finally a pearl, how and by what law ??? as a rule the laws are lobbyed by those or other interested)


            there has always been and still is a dilemma -
            the generals are always preparing for the PAST WAR,
            a, WEAPONS - not always able to fulfill the requirements of copperheads (meaning the military leadership).

            Therefore, INNOVATIVE / PIONEER WEAPONS are made by scientists and engineers, based on their prejudices and genius (tanks, missiles, atomic bombs), which the political leadership can hardly put into the hands of the military (as a rule, they by all means refuse to accept the new and unfamiliar). ...
          5. Vovan Petrenko
            Vovan Petrenko 5 June 2016 23: 19
            +9
            And what kind of fleet is Frigatekapitan. Weapons that I design and build for decades are simply essentially useless, during this time the opposite side has a new generation and what appears on the side of the designing building for decades becomes money automatically thrown into the wind.
            1. poquello
              poquello 5 June 2016 23: 30
              +2
              Quote: Vovan Petrenko
              ... The weapon that I design and build for decades is simply essentially useless, during this time the opposite side has a new generation and what appears on the side of the building that has been building for decades becomes money automatically thrown into the wind.

              about 20 years it’s insanity and speculation, now a new sniper has appeared - it’s been done for 14 years, certain directions have been studied for decades, if you didn’t steal, of course, this boat performed its role with flying colors, and R&D and operating experience went to the development piggy bank
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Simple
          Simple 5 June 2016 21: 52
          +16
          In vain. Probably the best (smartest) article of all time.
          I would put a hundred +.
          I read it with such pleasure
          1. VP
            VP 6 June 2016 04: 46
            +10
            There is a lot of controversy in it.
            Starting from "the corporal must make an order for the military-industrial complex, as the Americans had."
            Sorry, but an ordinary sailor cannot know the possibilities of science and production, what exactly is industry ready for and what exactly is real at the moment, what are the expected achievements in science.
            And I doubt that the military-industrial complex shoved the boat off and shoved the unsuspecting military "Surprise! Here, we have done it, operate it, we will tell you where what is in it and why."
            The author writes from the point of view of a person who already has a great deal of practical experience; he has been in the Navy for decades. From this position it is very easy and easy to kick for mistakes made when everything was just beginning, when people were just creating the atomic fleet, when there was still no crystal clear concept of use and it was not clear what was most significant and what was secondary. And this is the main problem of the article - kicking from the heights of afterglow.
            1. spravochnik
              spravochnik 6 June 2016 10: 03
              0
              Starting from "the corporal must make an order for the military-industrial complex, as the Americans had."
              Sorry, but an ordinary sailor cannot know the possibilities of science and production, what exactly is industry ready for and what exactly is real at the moment, what are the expected achievements in science.

              That's right, a sailor should formulate the concept of naval construction, forming a strategy for using the Navy and clearly formulating tasks for science and industry. And this is not a simple sailor, but a sailor with experience and high enough ranks.
              1. VP
                VP 6 June 2016 11: 11
                +2
                Well, there couldn’t be done without a GMH.
                It is simply unrealistic for the industry to develop and do something without the approval and expertise of the military - the stakes are too harsh for such things to be decided at the level of "department head Vasya" who decided "it would be nice for the military to come up with something and then please them"
            2. Simple
              Simple 6 June 2016 11: 23
              +4
              I didn’t write that the article was "the ultimate truth" ?!
              She is simply interesting and informative.
              I enjoyed reading with an official dinner while the family watched crap on Russian TV
            3. NEXUS
              NEXUS 6 June 2016 18: 42
              +1
              Quote: VP
              And this is the main problem of the article - kicking from the heights of afterlife.

              There is such a moment, but ... in defense of the author, I would say that looking at the mistakes of the past it would be necessary to build our fleet in the present for the future. It’s only du..r .. that he doesn’t learn from his own mistakes or those of others .And our mistakes in the past, unfortunately, were given to us by the blood and lives of people.
              As regards the article itself, I agree with much in it ... We also need repair docks and modern piers and much, much much ... But I think first we really need to adopt a law
              1. It is necessary to develop and establish, in accordance with the established procedure, a set of legislative measures to protect the Navy from incompetent decisions of any level;

              And this will be correct. Because such individuals as Serdyukov, being in those positions where decisions have to be made, harm not only the army and navy, but the state as a whole not only by their theft, but also by their incompetent incompetence.
              1. VP
                VP 7 June 2016 06: 14
                +2
                Quote: NEXUS
                But I think first we really need to pass a law
                1. It is necessary to develop and establish, in accordance with the established procedure, a set of legislative measures to protect the Navy from incompetent decisions of any level;
                And this will be correct. Because such individuals as Serdyukov, being in those positions where decisions have to be made, harm not only the army and navy, but the state as a whole not only by their theft, but also by their incompetent incompetence.

                If humanity could solve all problems by adopting a law prohibiting the adoption of unproductive and stupid laws and orders
                then it would have done it a few thousand years ago.
                This, in essence, is evolution, and a similar process provides for the possibility of both non-optimal solutions and unsuccessful personnel appointments, no one is free from this anywhere in the world.
                As an illustration, the USA where, having a military budget exceeding the sum of all military budgets of the rest of the world, there are a huge number of problems in the development of the armed forces. Not out of malice, and not because of sabotage. It’s just that somewhere they didn’t take into account something at one time, somewhere they adopted an erroneous concept, somewhere they considered something irrelevant, somewhere they made an erroneous bet on something ...
                1. alexej123
                  alexej123 7 June 2016 11: 17
                  -1
                  That's right. The usual human factor, from which no one is safe.
        3. not main
          not main 5 June 2016 22: 02
          +9
          Quote: poquello
          it’s written for academics, I’m stupid, I put a minus, something about the frequency, something about isolation, and in the end, we fools chased speed and depth

          What was there to read? And to put assessments ... without understanding the essence of the question? Unfortunately, there are too many such "appraisers"!
          1. poquello
            poquello 5 June 2016 22: 39
            -4
            Quote: non-primary
            Quote: poquello
            it’s written for academics, I’m stupid, I put a minus, something about the frequency, something about isolation, and in the end, we fools chased speed and depth

            What was there to read? And to put assessments ... without understanding the essence of the question? Unfortunately, there are too many such "appraisers"!

            Well, if special, I threw it below the replica, try to debate
        4. sergeybulkin
          sergeybulkin 5 June 2016 22: 17
          +1
          it is written for academics

          Why do we need all this? It is necessary for the president to re-read it at night and two or three times ... recourse
          1. poquello
            poquello 5 June 2016 22: 45
            +1
            Quote: sergeybulkin
            it is written for academics

            Why do we need all this? ...

            just recommending the author to go to the bazaar, buy a bird and peck her brains - somewhat rudely, but all this is for you to hawala - it’s cleverly written
            1. Vasiliev Yu
              Vasiliev Yu 6 June 2016 04: 07
              +3
              I don’t understand, if someone didn’t like the article, expressed their opinion, well, move on. The point is to prove to everyone: `` I'm the only one smart, the rest are stupid people ''?
              If you do not agree, tell me your opinion, if someone objected, try to defend with reason, does not accept the opponent, leave him with your opinion. The sense of srach here to arrange?
        5. Alexey Antonov
          Alexey Antonov 23 November 2017 08: 58
          +2
          And I was amused by “6 TAs” on project 627 / 627A (instead of 8) and “the fire in the eighth (?) Compartment of the Komsomolets started in the absence of a watch ...”
          Immediately obvious - the author "knows" the subject!
    2. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 5 June 2016 19: 39
      +37
      Quote: andre
      Article bomb!

      Honestly, it is interesting to read about the shortcomings of the 705 project, but in the end the article turned into an ode to the American genius and Soviet stagnation. negative
      1. sgazeev
        sgazeev 5 June 2016 20: 20
        +8
        Quote: Vladimirets
        Quote: andre
        Article bomb!

        Honestly, it is interesting to read about the shortcomings of the 705 project, but in the end the article turned into an ode to the American genius and Soviet stagnation. negative

        But what about the American sonars "yawned" in the Gulf of Mexico, New York with "delight" contemplated the Russian nuclear submarine. lol
        1. Inok10
          Inok10 5 June 2016 20: 43
          +3
          Quote: sgazeev
          But what about the American sonars "yawned" in the Gulf of Mexico, New York with "delight" contemplated the Russian nuclear submarine.

          ... they are silent about this ... laughing ... a shitty scribble with a convenient name ... there will be more ... geopolitical confrontation is increasing, which means that a tub of dirt will pour on everything that is possible and we will immediately read about "gallant mattress makers" with railguns and lasers with which they will crush everyone and all ... laughing
        2. NordUral
          NordUral 5 June 2016 21: 30
          0
          Has it ever crossed your mind that this is a clever disinformation from the USA? Although I believe in what our people could go through, but not so much. Too everything is stuck with sensors, etc.
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 6 June 2016 10: 09
            +5
            On the same topic is the controversy of the author’s thesis about the conscious refusal of the US Navy to automate. It does not fit with the modern trends of the same US Navy, where a course has been taken to minimize the number of ship crews. Or the author is not in the know ?.
        3. Amurets
          Amurets 6 June 2016 01: 08
          +8
          Quote: sgazeev
          But what about the American sonars "yawned" in the Gulf of Mexico, New York with "delight" contemplated the Russian nuclear submarine.

          American sonars missed a lot of things, but the article is interesting. In the sense that the decisions taken during the construction have moved many technical and technological problems and solutions in the industry. And thanks to not only 705 but also boats of other projects, we have a titanium industry, new equipment designed on new principles went into series. I do not touch upon organizational problems, but in terms of developing new systems of automation, telemechanics, metallurgy of new alloys, the boats of this project are considered to be breakthrough. Yes, the project is not unambiguous, but stationary reactors with liquid metal cores operate as experimental. I consider both the article and the project ambiguous, the American experience is presented unsuccessfully, since the American reactor at the Seawulf nuclear submarine worked on a sodium coolant. And from the article it is necessary to "squeeze the water and an ode to the American genius" and critically look at the shortcomings. see the link for comparison of LMC coolants, their advantages and disadvantages. http://ru.rfwiki.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0% B5% D0% B0% D0% BA% D1% 82% D0% BE% D1% 80_% D1%
          81_%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%8
          7%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BC_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81
          %D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC
        4. mav1971
          mav1971 6 June 2016 21: 15
          -3
          Quote: sgazeev
          Quote: Vladimirets
          Quote: andre
          Article bomb!

          Honestly, it is interesting to read about the shortcomings of the 705 project, but in the end the article turned into an ode to the American genius and Soviet stagnation. negative

          But what about the American sonars "yawned" in the Gulf of Mexico, New York with "delight" contemplated the Russian nuclear submarine. lol


          You can immediately see the stupid idiot ...

          The Gulf of Mexico has a size of 1,5 million square kilometers. This is by area:
          - 5 times the area of ​​the Caspian Sea,
          - almost 4 times the area of ​​the Black Sea,
          - 2 times the area of ​​the Kara Sea,
          - 10 percent more than the area of ​​the Barents Sea.

          Do you even imagine what you are writing about? You have a lack of brain.

          New York is generally a complete pi ... deja ... some ...
          There was no such thing. It just wasn’t!

          stop talking nonsense ...
        5. goblin xnumx
          goblin xnumx 7 June 2016 09: 45
          +1
          this is the merit of people - and so it is always in Russia - people "pull" - and the result - "it was conceived and planned"
      2. NordUral
        NordUral 5 June 2016 21: 28
        +12
        Regarding the Americans and us - all this is unfortunately. You just need to take it for granted and draw conclusions. There is nothing offensive in this. Given the industrial power of the United States and the Union, we look very good. Especially knowing that the leadership was far from the best managers after Stalin, and this continues to the present.
    3. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 5 June 2016 19: 41
      -2
      Quote: andre
      The largest naval base of the US Navy Norfolk
      NationalDefense.ru

      Mon cher, they were fatally unlucky.
      "The largest naval base of the US Navy Norfolk NationalDefense.ru
      One tiny rocket and there is no largest, best of the best, equipped with the latest of .. I'm sorry I did not read the article. Just understand - crap. And who reads condolences to those.
      The guy below correctly wrote "Such things can only be discussed and resolved by competent people with knowledge, experience and practical skills in working with these ships. And of course the General Staff with admirals of all fleets in terms of a strategic vision of the current situation and its development for at least the next 10 20 years."
      Since, thank God, being a researcher (I saw, touched, told military iron, but most importantly, I love him, like any Russian I understand), and therefore ..
      1. "about the high activity and adventurism of the military-industrial complex, the shipbuilding program, to put it mildly, may turn out to be not the one the country needs."
      "about the high activity and adventurism of the military-industrial complex, the shipbuilding program may not meet the needs of the country." It seems to me shorter, clearer, although not so emotionally.
      2. "1. It is necessary to develop and establish in the established order a set of legislative measures to protect the Navy from incompetent decisions of any level;"
      My question is: Mr. Topchiev read what he wrote? He is a defender of the interests of the Navy against decisions (I think it’s not round to decide on the competence of the General Staff decisions near Topchiev!)
      3. "2. The oceanic zone has been inhabited for a long time and very soundly by a potential enemy. Trying to compete with him means engaging in another imitation;"
      Here's a trickster. Do not imitate. Sit at home. Dot.
      4. "3. The need for constant build-up of naval strategic nuclear forces of the Navy. Ensuring complete inaccessibility of enemy patrol areas;" What was it? Who will control the districts and whose? Whom not to let then? The pagons will be ripped off! But the order will be written in such Russian language, and then they will sort it out by letter. And they will bring, logically, to a firing squad. And what the hell are we having such talented writers? You give him the dough, but to the buttons, even the "Claudia", neither, he, have pity on us.
      Read, take apart the delirium of the next fall fifth, seventh seal of insight, by God it is boring.
      1. poquello
        poquello 5 June 2016 19: 45
        -3
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Only competent people can discuss and decide such things, with knowledge, experience and practical skills in working with these vessels.

        for there are a lot of author’s ratings, but there are few descriptions of the problems, the radio on an armored train
        1. Vasiliev Yu
          Vasiliev Yu 6 June 2016 04: 24
          +9
          Quote: poquello
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          Only competent people can discuss and decide such things, with knowledge, experience and practical skills in working with these vessels.

          for there are a lot of author’s ratings, but there are few descriptions of the problems, the radio on an armored train

          B ... la, not a single wise guy even figured it all out on himself. It is one thing to go on ships with well-known jambs in the water position, another when you know and imagine what it can threaten in the underwater.
          The author just went to them. We have already forgotten everything like on the Kursk, the last time they went out to sea, knowing in what position the boat was.
          Again, I am writing for those who are not too resourceful: it’s good to twist sitting on the couch, be in their skin and position.
          1. poquello
            poquello 6 June 2016 13: 30
            -6
            Quote: vasiliev yu
            B ... la, not a single wise guy even figured it all out on himself.

            figure out for yourself this argument is this? IMHO srach begins in article from the second paragraph and further in the text, bring US submarines with the characteristics of that time exceeding in speed, maneuverability and depth
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 6 June 2016 21: 37
              0
              Quote: poquello
              Quote: vasiliev yu
              B ... la, not a single wise guy even figured it all out on himself.

              figure out for yourself this argument is this? IMHO srach begins in article from the second paragraph and further in the text, bring US submarines with the characteristics of that time exceeding in speed, maneuverability and depth


              What will be the result of a racing track bike in a sour arable land?

              What is the point of chasing speeds, maneuverability, and depth - if you are blind and deaf?
              Who will you chase if you don’t see and hear him?
              Why do you need a maneuver on 42 nodes, do you have an 1 point?
              Why do you need an immersion depth of 600-800 meters, if you have an 1 point?

              What will be the result if a deaf-mute person is put into a boxing ring? Yes. let him know how to move fast - but it costs nothing. it’s zilch if it is initially deaf and dumb ...
              1. poquello
                poquello 7 June 2016 03: 05
                0
                Quote: mav1971
                What is the point of chasing speeds, maneuverability, and depth - if you are blind and deaf?

                the blind and the deaf went unnoticed to the strongly sighted AUG
                1. goblin xnumx
                  goblin xnumx 7 June 2016 09: 50
                  +1
                  and again - thanks to the human factor - honor and praise to submariners
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 7 June 2016 17: 07
                  0
                  Quote: poquello
                  the blind and the deaf went unnoticed to the strongly sighted AUG

                  Other boats approached the very sighted AUG - the same 671s.
                  They did not have such outstanding tabular and paper performance characteristics. But at the same time, K-314 (Project 671V) could accidentally surface under the keel of the Kitty Hawk.
                3. Silhouette
                  Silhouette 7 June 2016 19: 11
                  0
                  Quote: poquello
                  the blind and the deaf went unnoticed to the strongly sighted AUG


                  And at what speed did they approach, you know? .... Or maybe they didn’t move at all ....
            2. goblin xnumx
              goblin xnumx 7 June 2016 09: 49
              +1
              and who will win? - a moose rushing at a wild speed and having an advantage in weight or a crouching hunter in camouflage whose moose does not see?
              1. poquello
                poquello 7 June 2016 11: 53
                0
                Quote: Leshy74
                and who will win? - a moose rushing at a wild speed and having an advantage in weight or a crouching hunter in camouflage whose moose does not see?

                understand a simple thing, all these comparisons are not correct, and tracking statistics are far-fetched, it is used to detect enemy submarines set of measures and not just sonars, etc., submarines, the Americans, with their type of super-superior tracking submarines, used a network of stationary sensors scattered along our probable routes, why? because, according to the local wrestlers, the American submarines were just super-duper, they could do everything themselves against our deaf-blind
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 7 June 2016 17: 09
                  +2
                  Quote: poquello
                  understand a simple thing, all these comparisons are incorrect, and tracking statistics are far-fetched, a set of measures is used to detect enemy submarines, not just sonars, etc. Submarines, the Americans with their type of super-superior tracking submarines used a network of stationary sensors scattered along our likely routes why? because, according to the local wrestlers, the American submarines were simply super-duper, they could do everything themselves against our deaf-blind

                  So why then simplify the work of the Americans? Why, knowing the need to overcome these milestones, build ultrafast and ultra-noisy nuclear submarines?
                  1. mav1971
                    mav1971 7 June 2016 22: 08
                    -2
                    Quote: Alexey RA

                    So why then simplify the work of the Americans? Why, knowing the need to overcome these milestones, build ultrafast and ultra-noisy nuclear submarines?


                    That's all.
                    Checkmate.
                    An answer and further pathos pathetics are not expected ...
                    1. poquello
                      poquello 7 June 2016 23: 46
                      0
                      Quote: mav1971
                      Quote: Alexey RA

                      So why then simplify the work of the Americans? Why, knowing the need to overcome these milestones, build ultrafast and ultra-noisy nuclear submarines?


                      That's all.
                      Checkmate.
                      An answer and further pathos pathetics are not expected ...

                      go to the bazaar, they like to lie there
                  2. poquello
                    poquello 7 June 2016 23: 44
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Quote: poquello
                    understand a simple thing, all these comparisons are incorrect, and tracking statistics are far-fetched, a set of measures is used to detect enemy submarines, not just sonars, etc. Submarines, the Americans with their type of super-superior tracking submarines used a network of stationary sensors scattered along our likely routes why? because, according to the local wrestlers, the American submarines were simply super-duper, they could do everything themselves against our deaf-blind

                    So why then simplify the work of the Americans? Why, knowing the need to overcome these milestones, build ultrafast and ultra-noisy nuclear submarines?

                    what does it mean why? probably could have built ultrafast not ultra-noise))))
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 5 June 2016 21: 42
        +6
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        One tiny missile and not the largest, best of the best, equipped with the latest

        So what not to build at all?
        In addition, you apparently expect that the missile will be with nuclear weapons.
        Who is the first spirit?
        Well, do not forget about missile defense. After 10-15 years, the Yankees will finish their missiles and will not only conduct ICBMs, but also cruise missiles.
        In general, I think that there will be no direct military operations, there is too much to lose to Europe and America, but economically it is quite possible to crush, put in such a position that the oligarchs and those in power will well become hard to live
      3. Old
        Old 6 June 2016 18: 53
        +3
        They didn’t bother to read the article, but two-page comments) The Chukchi is not a reader, he is a writer!
      4. mav1971
        mav1971 6 June 2016 21: 29
        +1
        Quote: Mavrikiy

        Read, take apart the delirium of the next fall fifth, seventh seal of insight, by God it is boring.


        For people who do not understand what generational change is.
        I explain on the fingers.
        There is a saying among the Americans (I don't remember literally, but the meaning is 100% accurate): "Don't kick the boy - it is still unknown what he will become. When he grows up!"

        Now I will translate, in relation to this topic.
        Each younger generation has "its own cockroaches" in their heads. Based on their source of information in adolescence and adolescence, their knowledge, their ideas, their way of life.
        And coming into adulthood, at an institute, at a research institute, at an enterprise - it does not reset to zero.
        He does not accept "other people's cockroaches" openly and selflessly.
        He dilutes his own with strangers.
        And he still - will do in life as it had already been formed in his youth.
        The probability of young and ambitious coming to the defense is always there.

        If you are thinking. that the ideas for the implementation of the same network-centric scheme of warfare belonged to the first admiral who "voiced publicly" - this is not at all true.
        Ideas were born by young IT nicknames, students practically, in the bowels of MIT and Berkeley. They were run on DARPA programs, and only then they were voiced by generals and admirals.
        therefore, to make the right decisions, the highest military ranks are not needed.
        For only one in half of the highest military ranks has a mood for advancement or development.
        The rest are simply content with position and power.
        This is true in all countries of the world.
    4. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 5 June 2016 20: 27
      -7
      Quote: andre
      Article bomb! In a good sense of the word)! Russia hold on! We are for you!

      That's for sure. I didn’t read the article, I'm sick. But my eyes fell on the last line.
      ". Restructuring the personnel policy of the Navy."
      This is the problem, and this is where we did not please our curators. Well, to hell with them. We will otpotrulrum, shoot and if necessary we shoot, if we consider that someone has too much. So will it be politically sustained? AND?
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 5 June 2016 20: 57
        0
        Quote: andre
        Article bomb! In a good sense of the word)! Russia hold on! We are for you!
        That's for sure. I didn’t read the article, I'm sick. But my eyes fell on the last line.
        ". Restructuring the personnel policy of the Navy."
        This is the problem, and this is where we did not please our curators. Well, to hell with them. We will patrol, shoot and, if necessary, shoot, if we consider that someone has too much. So will it be politically sustained? AND?
        fixed clerical errors.
    5. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 5 June 2016 20: 39
      -8
      Quote: andre
      Article bomb! In a good sense of the word)! Russia hold on! We are for you!

      Quote: andre
      A torpedo with a thermonuclear charge longer than twenty and a diameter of two meters was proposed.

      It is certainly good that you are from afar and for us. But at our side, friends-scientists write ... either about us or about us "A torpedo with a thermonuclear charge more than twenty in length and two meters in diameter was proposed." Is he adequate? And try his kalupni, it turns out like this ...
      Okay, we will hold on, try, but after such pearls there will not be enough strength to hold 20 * 2 m, mother give birth to me back.
      1. Vovan Petrenko
        Vovan Petrenko 5 June 2016 23: 12
        +9
        Yes, history needs to be studied, there was such an idea from the military-industrial complex and the main inventor academician Sakharov. But the naval on time stopped the father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, and you write about the adequate.
      2. ARES623
        ARES623 6 June 2016 07: 48
        +4
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Okay, we will hold on, try, but after such pearls there will not be enough strength to hold 20 * 2 m, mother give birth to me back.

        What surprises you? Do you think the Status-6 underwater drone with a range of 10 km will be less? A 000-meter submarine is the norm, a practically completed project, and 170x20 raises questions for you?
      3. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 6 June 2016 15: 22
        0
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        A torpedo with a thermonuclear charge longer than twenty and a diameter of two meters was proposed.

        Well, this is a prototype of an autonomous submarine. What's the sad thing? You launch this drone from outside the PLO and everything. Everything is cheaper than the submarine
      4. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 7 June 2016 17: 31
        +1
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        "A torpedo with a thermonuclear charge over twenty in length and two meters in diameter was proposed." Is he adequate? And try his kalupni, it turns out like this ...
        Okay, we will hold on, try, but after such pearls there will not be enough strength to hold 20 * 2 m, mother give birth to me back.

        So ... in the article it is written that the first nuclear submarines began to be developed at all without connecting the Navy. The fleet actually learned about the new project only at the stage of approval of its performance characteristics. Not bad, but - not the fleet gave TK for design, but the industry gave the fleet a preliminary design for tasks that the fleet did not require ... everything was turned upside down.

        When the naval officers saw that scientists had piled up, they immediately demanded that everything be redone. For the main caliber of the original pr. 627 was a T-15 torpedo:
        The alleged armament of the nuclear boat to the fleet became known only in December of 1953, after the approval of the tactical and technical characteristics of the draft design of the 627. Sailors are very surprised. In the first compartment of the submarine was placed one huge torpedo tube, which almost completely supplanted the traditional torpedo armament. The length of the torpedo tube was 23,5 meter (22 percent of the total length of the submarine). On the submarine, in addition to the one and a half meter torpedo, it was envisaged to install two nasal 533-millimeter torpedo tubes with torpedoes for self-defense. Spare torpedoes are not provided.
        This unusual layout of the submarine is explained by the dimensions developed at the NII-400 under the leadership of the chief designer Shamarin N.N. torpedoes T-15. The length of the torpedo was about 23 meters, the mass of the torpedo - 40 tons, the mass of the warhead - 3,5-4 thousand kg.

        The reasons for this ridiculous situation are quite interesting:
        The initiator of the T-15 project was V. Alferov, whose activities were connected at various times with the Navy, the People’s Commissariat for the Shipbuilding Industry and the Ministry of Medium Engineering.
        For reasons of secrecy, as well as taking into account personal relations (the Navy treated Alferov extremely negatively, because his letter to Beria and Bulganin about the allegedly illegal transfer of documentation to the Americans on airspeed 45-36AV-A during the war, was the reason for the unfair trial of the admirals Kuznetsov, Galler, Alafuzov and Stepanov) the development of the T-15 torpedo was launched without the involvement of the Navy. The 6th division of the Navy learned about this torpedo only through the design of the first nuclear submarine - "Project 627" - whose chief designer was V.N. Peregudov.
    6. Denis Obukhov
      Denis Obukhov 6 June 2016 00: 34
      +8
      And without an article it’s clear - customers and designers of Project 705, carried away by record high-speed and other characteristics, have forgotten about the main quality of submarines, the meaning of its existence - HIDDEN!
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 6 June 2016 15: 16
        +2
        Quote: Denis Obukhov
        And without an article it’s clear - customers and designers of Project 705, carried away by record high-speed and other characteristics, have forgotten about the main quality of submarines, the meaning of its existence - HIDDEN!

        I do not think that with noise at pr. 705 everything is so completely bad. Judging by the photographs, measures to reduce it were taken quite specific. I bring a photo of PPU. It can be seen that it is made in the form of a functional unit mounted on a serious depreciation, completely untying it from a durable case. I think the main gearbox, generators and other noisy mechanisms were performed similarly.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 6 June 2016 15: 18
          +1
          Here are more photos in a larger size.
      2. Silhouette
        Silhouette 7 June 2016 19: 23
        -2
        Yes, the speed was record. And still unsurpassed. (Glory to the designers!) But useless and harmful. At this record speed, it made so much noise that the “roaring cows” looked silent. She was heard at the other end of the ocean. And on the surface it was accompanied by a water hump the size of a three-story house. This hump was visually tracked by any Orion in any weather.
    7. alex_V15
      alex_V15 6 June 2016 08: 25
      +2
      That is yes. Definitely a bomb.
      Here are just about 50 years old. THEN is extremely critical criticism. Well, create a time machine, well, throw this article to the very same shipbuilders! Oh please!

      The proposals that the author of this analytical work makes at the end are still relevant today.
      But it has long been known to everyone.

      And further. Oddly enough, but there are still statistics!
      And it shows that the accident rate in our Navy, with all its "lagging behind" the "advanced" American (with its "brilliant and infallible" Rickover), was still significantly lower than theirs! By the number of incidents per personnel and equipment!

      We were able to restore the country after the devastation, in conditions of isolation, when everything and everything was carefully hidden from us!
      And they managed to create atomic weapons in response, an atomic icebreaker, nuclear submarines, and also - to launch a man into space - the first!

      The article was written by a famous, very famous, respected, extremely competent, but perhaps only now it is clear already - an extremely wilting and disappointed person ...
      Most likely - it was written for many years. He began - probably during the collapse of the Union, at the beginning of the 90's.
      I really want to read from our famous Sergey Topchiev an article about those new boats that came to replace those whom he criticized so much.
      What will be his conclusions?
      And his conclusions about the real possibilities of American (and not only) nuclear submarines.
      1. opus
        opus 6 June 2016 11: 46
        +6
        Quote: alex_V15
        Here are just obsolete years on 50. THEN is a highly relevant criticism.

        The "famous" American military expert Dave Majumdar recently expressed his assumptions about the Husky. He believes that the new Russian nuclear submarine equipped with a reactor with a liquid metal coolant. Such lead-bismuth alloy reactors were installed on the Soviet submarines of the Lira project and were examples of advanced developments.
        Quote: alex_V15
        And it shows that the accident rate in our Navy, with all its "lagging behind" the "advanced" American

        Are you sure?
        1. Today, six nuclear-powered submarines lie at the bottom of the oceans: two american ("Thresher" and "Scorpio") and four soviet (K-8, K-219, K-278
        "Komsomolets", K-27).
        / Despite the fact that the American military submarine fleet was larger than the Soviet one, after the Second World War, accidents and catastrophes of the submarine were much less frequent in the US Navy.
        2. Statistics thing stubborn



        Quote: alex_V15
        Most likely - it was written for many years. He began - probably during the collapse of the Union, at the beginning of the 90's.

        The author is talking about atomic carriers of Russia, missile defense, the absence of a naval base, etc.
        which 90?
    8. Operator
      Operator 6 June 2016 13: 43
      -6
      I did not set a minus, but I object.

      The author of the article S. Topchiev has cereal in his head:
      - The main striking force of the Russian Navy (with the exception of the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces) is nuclear strike submarines that do not need overseas naval bases;
      - The main striking force of the American Navy (with the exception of the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces) is aircraft carrier strike groups, of which there are currently about a dozen and which include almost all cruisers and destroyers;
      - it is enough to attach to each AUG only one "Ash" with "Zircon" anti-ship missiles on board and the American surface fleet in the first hour of the war with Russia will be blown away to strike nuclear submarines, as well as frigates, corvettes and other littoral trifles, no naval base will help;
      - after that, the American strike submarine will only have to practice shooting at coastal targets with tactical Tomahawks shot down at times by the C-300 / 400 / 500.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 6 June 2016 13: 56
        +8
        Quote: Operator
        it is enough to attach to each AUG only one "Ash" with "Zircon" anti-ship missiles on board and the American surface fleet in the first hour of the war with Russia will be blown away to strike nuclear submarines, as well as frigates, corvettes and other littoral trifles, no naval base will help ;

        During an autonomous expedition to the South China Sea 1968, the K-10 submarine from the first generation of nuclear missile carriers of the USSR (675 project) received an order to intercept the U.S. Navy carrier carrier. The Enterprise carrier covered the Long Beach missile cruiser, frigates, and support ships. At the calculated point, captain 1 rank R.V. Mazin led the submarine through the defensive lines of the American warrant directly below the bottom of the Enterprise. Hiding behind the noise of the screws of a gigantic ship, the submarine accompanied the strike force for thirteen hours. During this time, training torpedo attacks on all pennants of the order were worked out and acoustic profiles were removed (characteristic noises of various vessels). After which K-10 successfully left the warrant and worked off a training missile attack at a distance. In the event of a real war, the entire compound would be destroyed by choice: conventional torpedoes or a nuclear strike. It is interesting to note that American experts rated the 675 project extremely low. It was these submarines that they dubbed "Roaring Cows." And it was they who were not able to find the ships of the US carrier formations. The boats of the 675 project were used not only to track surface ships, but sometimes “spoiled life” for American nuclear-powered submarines on duty. So, K-135 in 1967 during 5,5 hours continuously monitored Patrick Henry SSBN, remaining undetected itself.
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 6 June 2016 21: 52
          +5
          Quote: Serg65
          So, K-135 in 1967 during 5,5 hours continuously monitored Patrick Henry SSBN, remaining undetected itself.


          From "this pride" - one should cry, not be proud. An isolated case, touted to the skies. as something heroic ...
          You need to watch every day. This should be a chore. not signs of heroism.

          I will give the text below. He is a little indirect.
          Different conclusions can be drawn. But the main one is that they are always on our tail.

          The results of underwater collisions on the hulls of our nuclear missile submarines.
          In the history of the Soviet and Russian Navy, there were two dozen submarine collisions with foreign submarines when they were in an underwater position. Of these, 11 occurred in combat training ranges on the approaches to the main bases of the Northern and Pacific fleets, including eight in the North and three in the Pacific Ocean.
          Among them in the Northern Fleet:
          1. Collision in 1968 of the K-131 submarine with an unidentified US Navy submarine. The Americans, believing that our boat sank, carefully concealed this country from the public for a long time, journalists and even the Greenpeace international organization;
          2. Collision in 1969 of the nuclear submarine "K-19" with the nuclear submarine "Gato" of the US Navy;
          3. Collision in 1970 of the K-69 nuclear submarine with an unidentified US Navy nuclear submarine;
          4. Collision in 1981 of the K-211 nuclear submarine with an unidentified US Navy nuclear submarine;
          5. Collision in 1983 of the K-449 nuclear submarine with an unidentified US Navy nuclear submarine;
          6. Collision at 1986 of the TK-12 nuclear submarine with the Splendid nuclear submarine of the British Navy;
          7. Collision in February 1992 of the K-276 nuclear submarine in our territorial waters with the US Navy Baton Rouge nuclear submarine;
          8. Collision in March 1993 of the Borisoglebsk nuclear submarine with the US Navy Grayling submarine ..

          In the Pacific:
          1. Clash in June 1970 in the training range near Kamchatka nuclear submarine "K-108" and nuclear submarine "Totog" US Navy;
          2. Collision in 1974 in the same area of ​​the K-408 nuclear submarine with the Pintado nuclear submarine of the US Navy;
          3. Clash in 1981 in Peter the Great Bay (on the approaches to Vladivostok) K-324 nuclear submarine with an unidentified US Navy nuclear submarine.

          Almost all of the clashes in the training ranges were with the US Navy, conducting reconnaissance on the approaches to our naval bases (Navy) and recording sonar noise "portraits" of our nuclear submarines.

          As a rule, American nuclear submarines, which is a sin to conceal, having less noise and a greater detection range by means of hydroacoustics, expected our boats to leave their bases in ambush. With the discovery of our boats, they occupied the position of tracking them at the aft course angles of the latter, i.e. in the dead zone (shadow zone) of hydroacoustic means of observation of our nuclear submarines and could not be observed by them. When performing maneuvers by our submarines connected with a change in course or depth of immersion, even with short-term mutual sonar contact, collisions were not possible to avoid primarily due to lack of time and especially information about their spatial orientation relative to each other. Thus, submarine collisions took place in an almost uncontrolled environment and resulted in severe damage to the submarines.


          The text makes it clear "Who is really hunting for whom".
          1. Vasiliev Yu
            Vasiliev Yu 6 June 2016 22: 50
            0
            You are too smart and logical. I put you pluses everywhere, right there some ... blundered you. Some who earned their epaulettes here only by patriotic slogans do not like this.
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 7 June 2016 00: 52
            0
            Quote: mav1971
            The text clearly makes it clear "Who is really hunting whom".

            Quote: mav1971
            Thus, submarine collisions occurred in an almost uncontrolled environment and resulted in severe damage to the submarines.

            Strange they hunted uncontrollably.
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 7 June 2016 07: 14
              0
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Quote: mav1971
              The text clearly makes it clear "Who is really hunting whom".

              Quote: mav1971
              Thus, submarine collisions occurred in an almost uncontrolled environment and resulted in severe damage to the submarines.

              Strange they hunted uncontrollably.


              Why are you pulling quotes out of the general context?
              Or are you incapable of knowing 2 proposals together?
              Do you have every next sentence in a previously cleared place from the previous one?
              Here is the text a little earlier and which explains everything:
              "When performing maneuvers by our submarines associated with a change in course or diving depth, even with a short-term mutual hydroacoustic contact, a collision could not be avoided primarily due to a lack of time and especially information about their spatial orientation relative to each other."

              Chukchi is not a reader - I already understood ...
          3. Serg65
            Serg65 7 June 2016 05: 54
            +4
            Quote: mav1971
            The text makes it clear

            The text makes it clear only one thing that you do not understand anything! Ask the submariners why they received orders and medals after the battle. In addition to the commander, the starpom. navigators and acoustics, none of them knows what was awarded! During the Cold War, the Soviet Navy was engaged in combat work, and not an eternal show like USN. Those officially published data on the military service of the Soviet submarines are only the tip of the iceberg so far classified. hi
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 7 June 2016 22: 24
              -2
              Quote: Serg65
              Quote: mav1971
              The text makes it clear

              The text makes it clear only one thing that you do not understand anything! Ask the submariners


              Of course I understand. your desire is pathetic and pathetic to humiliate me ...
              But you didn’t want so much screw your brainthat did not even bother to guess that this text is a quote.
              But I obviously hung it in the format of a quote.
              And also did not bother who the author of this quote.

              But I’ll tell you, I’ll do it for you. That all pomposity and silly pathos would fly off you.
              These are the words of the chief navigator of the Navy, Rear Admiral Valery Aleksin.
              These are the words of the present submariner.
              During the year, he completed training practice as a sailor on the Frunze cruiser of the Black Sea Fleet.
              In 1960, he was transferred to the Pacific Higher Naval School, whose navigational faculty graduated with honors in 1965. Got an assignment to a missile submarine.
              After a year and a half, he became commander of the warhead. Hopes of leadership Alexin justified.
              Already in the 1967 year he was recognized as the best navigator of the submarine brigade in Vladivostok, in the next - the best navigator of the 29 missile submarine division, and in the 1970 m the best navigator of the 15 submarine squadron of the Pacific Fleet.


              Does this mean anything to you?

              For 2 years he studied at the Naval Academy. After that, until October 1976, he served as the flagship navigator of the new strategic missile submarine division. Then he became the flagship navigator of the flotilla of nuclear submarines in Kamchatka. Since January 1981, the captain of rank 1 V.I. Aleksin has been the deputy chief navigator of the Navy, and since March 1986 the chief navigator of the Navy. The military rank of Rear Admiral was awarded in April 1988 of the year.
              Over the 16 years of service in submarines, he participated in the preparation and successful conduct of almost 250 campaigns for military service in various regions of the World Ocean.
              For scientific substantiation and effective implementation of new methods of combat and operational use of naval forces in practice, he was awarded the Order of the Red Star, the Badge of Honor, and several medals.


              In your opinion, does he understand anything about this?

              Council.
              never. never try to argue with quotes. without finding out the author of these same quotes. Otherwise, you will look funny.
              Like now.
              Funny and pathetic ...
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 8 June 2016 08: 25
                +2
                Quote: mav1971
                In your opinion, does he understand anything about this?

                Alexei, first of all I’m not talking with the admiral, but with you. Secondly, in order to quote something, you need to understand what you are quoting, and not build yourself into a know-it-all.
                The quote indicates five collisions with an "unidentified" US nuclear submarine, with 3 out of 5 on the Northern Fleet. Were the Americans really more active in the Barents Sea than in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and Japan? The Arctic is a very difficult navigation area. All year round, there are ice fields in the sea, icebergs and ice hummocks are carried out into the open seas; it is difficult to track their location precisely. And to plot the exact location of the drifting ice and iceberg on a map is problematic. Therefore, always, before going to sea, the ship's commander is instructed approximately like this: "When sailing at sea, be careful, it is possible to meet with icebergs and ice fields." What should the submarine commander be about after an accidental collision with ice or a fishing trawl? After all, that is the navigation incident for which the navigator and the ship's commander are responsible. A collision with an unidentified foreign submarine did not entail punitive measures against the commander and navigator. Everyone knew that our hydroacoustics facilities were inferior to American ones in terms of technical capabilities. Everyone knew that our nuclear submarines were superior to American submarines in terms of noise and acoustic interference. And since this is so, it means that objectively our submarine commander could not prevent a collision with a foreign submarine. Although, to be honest, this is my purely personal opinion based again on my naval practice. Now about your high opinion of unsuccessful Soviet nuclear submarines, collisions. The author of this article, being the commander of the KETD nuclear submarine K-513, didn’t I ever hear about the order to make a 180-degree turn every hour of movement to make sure about the presence or absence of an adversary at the aft corners? And the American nuclear submarines in those days could listen to the same angles? It was this maneuver that made the hunter lose contact with the ward, and as a result of illiterate and dangerous maneuvering, a collision occurred.
                Back to your quote ...
                Quote: mav1971
                1. Collision in 1968 of the K-131 submarine with an unidentified US Navy submarine. The Americans, believing that our boat sank, carefully concealed this country from the public for a long time, journalists and even the Greenpeace international organization;

                Of course, I wildly apologize, but in the 1968 year of Greenpeace there wasn’t even a trace!
                Six officially confirmed clashes occurred FOR 5 YEARS, one in one year. Does this give reason to say that the Americans were constantly sitting on our tail? Maybe you have other quotes confirming your opinion?
                1. mav1971
                  mav1971 8 June 2016 21: 13
                  0
                  Sergei!
                  Thank you for going the other way!
                  I am in principle very emotional.
                  And I can say rudeness, but when I see even the slightest hint of rudeness in real live communication - I’m rebuilding ..
                  Sorry!
                  Thank you for that. that "did not develop" ...
                  Thanks. for finding a reason to read your articles.
                  I disagree with many things - but this is not a reason to read them. After all, you wrote them. Based on your sources and your worldview. And you have what you can really argue.
                  Directly or indirectly. Crazy Ivan was written about many years ago. This is an indirect indicator that "they are pancake hanging on the tail imperceptibly. And in order to find them, you need to make maneuvers that allow you to" spy out who might be "on the tail.
                  Causal relationships.
                  First the cause - then the effect.
                  The reason is the enemy on the tail.
                  The consequence is maneuvers in the form of a "reversal".
                  With a high level of analytics, the acoustic environment is monitored up to the level of flow around the water flow. Provided a stop machine and recirculation on 360.
                  It is worth going away at 5 degrees to the side with the stop of the machine. that in 10 minutes to go to the tail of the target again.
                  But not everyone was capable of it.

                  The clashes were not just clashes.
                  They were analyzed.
                  And the analysis showed that the movements of enemy boats are always at aft courses.
                  That’s the trouble.
                  Ours made a crazy Ivan - and the Americans stuck in us.
                  That is the reason.

                  Indirect example.
                  Our boy "drives a great car". But they always bump into him.
                  And if you look at the accident?
                  According to statistics?
                  If you always crash into your ass, it means that you do not observe the speed limit and distance and change lanes in front of a traffic light, usually a pedestrian crossing.
                  If you always have muzzle damage, then you do not monitor the flow rate and traffic signs.
                  those. you can always find the real reason, not the words of interested parties.
                  Everything can be analyzed when the incident is not equal to 1-2-3 ...
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 9 June 2016 11: 00
                    +1
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Directly or indirectly. Crazy Ivan was written about many years ago. This is an indirect indicator that "they are pancake hanging on the tail unnoticed.

                    Alexey, not only they hung! The Internet is full of burning stories about the combat life of Soviet nuclear submarines, just take a look at the episodes from K-324, K-153, K-461, K-147, raid K-524. Project 671 RTMK is generally a song !!!! What are the only operations "Aport" and "Atrina"! A characteristic feature of these operations was the silence that accompanied all activities of the submarine fleet on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Outside of the rare notes about another circumnavigation or surfacing at the Pole, citizens did not receive any information about what was happening on the submarine. For all the difference in approaches to secrecy, in this case the USSR and the USA behaved almost the same, in principle they did not comment on or cover the operations of their submarines. As a result, rare incidents with a large number of victims or fraught with certain consequences, or simply happened, planned and filed at the right time to form an appropriate opinion in society and elites, became public.
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Everything can be analyzed when the incident is not equal to 1-2-3 ...

                    And they analyzed ... in 1979 the towed SJC "Skat-403" was tested on the nuclear submarine K-3 for the nuclear submarine of the 3rd generation, and in 1986 the SJC of the 4th generation MGK-540 "Skat-3" was tested on it ... These GAKs allow you to "view" the entire surrounding space.
  2. Ros 56
    Ros 56 5 June 2016 18: 37
    +4
    Only competent people with the knowledge, experience and practical skills of working with these vessels can discuss and solve such things. Well, of course, the General Staff with the admirals of all fleets in terms of strategic vision of the current situation and its development for at least the next 10-20 years. hi
    1. Andrey K
      Andrey K 5 June 2016 18: 47
      +23
      Quote: Ros 56
      Only competent people with the knowledge, experience and practical skills of working with these vessels can discuss and solve such things. Well, of course, the General Staff with the admirals of all fleets in terms of strategic vision of the current situation and its development for at least the next 10-20 years. hi

      I read the article and compared it with the table of contents: "Opinion: Why Project 705 nuclear submarines were not needed by the Navy" ...
      And that's why they are not needed because by the time they were born, in twenty years - the advantages that were laid in "Lyra" simply evaporated request
      Our customers, from the Navy, have acted extremely true yes
      Why was it necessary to take into service, targets for a potential enemy? request
      1. sir_obs
        sir_obs 5 June 2016 19: 37
        0
        What are the advantages and where did they evaporate?
        The ship, even by seasons, is in many ways advanced. If they hadn’t ditched, after modernization they would have chased stripes for a sweet soul.
        1. Winnie76
          Winnie76 5 June 2016 20: 21
          +13
          Quote: sir_obs
          The ship, even by seasons, is in many ways advanced. If they hadn’t ditched, after modernization they would have chased stripes for a sweet soul.
          Automation 70s - advanced? Are you out of your mind? Maybe you need a KVN TV, upgraded to the kitchen, and instead of mp3, a gramophone? A metal coolant is generally a motley. I’m even afraid to guess how many kW * hours / babos it is worth supporting the coolant in liquid form for say 30 years, at a temperature of 200 degrees, multiply by the number of submarines.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 5 June 2016 21: 40
            +2
            You can AK-47 with automatic 1949 if storage conditions are provided. The reactors heat themselves; when shutting down, they must be dampened.
            1. Dim444444
              Dim444444 8 June 2016 07: 28
              0
              The AK-47 has mechanics, not automation. If applied to submarines.
              And the reactors heat themselves up to a certain point. Then they need to be dampened. And then you can not dampen.
              And maintaining the liquid fuel oil in a liquid state is not just leaving the reactor without damping - it is the work of at least one central heating pump so that the coolant in the steam generators does not freeze, etc.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Starina_hank
            Starina_hank 7 June 2016 18: 36
            0
            The housing, in my opinion the most expensive component, could be used for modernization, at least for R&D.
          4. Starina_hank
            Starina_hank 7 June 2016 18: 36
            0
            The housing, in my opinion the most expensive component, could be used for modernization, at least for R&D.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Andrey K
          Andrey K 5 June 2016 22: 44
          +5
          Quote: sir_obs
          What are the advantages and where did they evaporate?
          The ship, even by seasons, is in many ways advanced. If they hadn’t ditched, after modernization they would have chased stripes for a sweet soul.

          I am glad for your optimism yes
          But, as our Supreme Commander-in-Chief says: "We have a rough saying about grandmother, about grandfather: if grandmother had grandfather's external genitals, she would be grandfather, not grandmother ..." laughing
          I won’t take the bread from my colleague below, Winnie76, he basically answered hi
          I will add from myself - the cost of your "upgrades", taking into account the current development of technology, would be a "pretty penny" request
          I don’t think that the one who, according to you, “ditched” “Lira,” did not consider these options. What can not be taken away from our naval and not only military acceptance is to achieve the required result with minimal costs. Moreover, the fleet is led by officers who know by heart the military doctrine of our state. Accordingly, possessing information about what types of weapons are needed to fulfill the tasks set in the doctrine and where this technique will be usedhi
          As for the article itself, I suppose, the "specialist" wrote, exactly the same as me. And I am a man completely far from the navy request
          I know this, and with my "analytics and advice" I don't go where I don't understand. Which is what I wish to the author - S.V. Topchiev request
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 6 June 2016 10: 21
            +4
            I don’t think that the one who, according to you, “ditched” “Lira,” did not consider these options. What can not be taken away from our naval and not only military acceptance is to achieve the required result with minimal costs. Moreover, the fleet is led by officers who know by heart the military doctrine of our state. Accordingly, possessing information about what types of weapons are needed to perform the tasks set in the doctrine and where this technique will be used hi

            The one who ditched "Lyra" ditched not only her, but practically the entire fleet. And he counted only one thing - money in his pocket.
    2. kuz363
      kuz363 5 June 2016 19: 17
      -7
      The General Staff with brave admirals works for themselves, and not for the country. Therefore, you can’t save enough money in the budget.
    3. svp67
      svp67 5 June 2016 20: 00
      +2
      Quote: Ros 56
      Only competent people with the knowledge, experience and practical skills of working with these vessels can discuss and solve such things. Well, of course, the General Staff with the admirals of all fleets in terms of strategic vision of the current situation and its development for at least the next 10-20 years

      And the questions are meaningful. According to rumors, they also want to equip our new nuclear submarine of project 885 "Husky" with a reactor with a liquid metal coolant
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 5 June 2016 20: 39
        +9
        Quote: svp67
        And the questions are meaningful. According to rumors, they also want to equip our new nuclear submarine of project 885 "Husky" with a reactor with a liquid metal coolant

        It has been a long time since the construction of the 705s, the technologies are not the same, tea will be modern. If you created such a reactor with acceptable characteristics and uncomplicated maintenance, then why not? Moreover, these are just rumors ... So far ... winked Personally for me, so the technique should be simple and perfect smile hi
      2. novobranets
        novobranets 5 June 2016 21: 51
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        Our new nuclear submarine of project 885 "Husky"

        In general, it is Project 885 that is needed to understand what the Russian submarine of the future will be. In an “ideological” sense, it is likely to become the successor to Ashen. Probably, the appearance of the Husky nuclear submarine will be similar to this submarine. Https: //naked-science.ru/article/tech/haski-sdelaet-rossiyu-v
        ladychicey

        1. Engineer
          Engineer 6 June 2016 09: 24
          -1
          delete the picture that the schoolboy has made in 3Dmax
  3. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 5 June 2016 18: 38
    +5
    2. The ocean zone is inhabited for a long time and very solidly by a probable adversary. Trying to compete with him means doing another imitation;

    3. The need for a steady build-up of naval strategic nuclear forces. Ensuring the complete inaccessibility of enemy patrol areas;
    I don’t understand these "postulates" ... what to compete on is it worth starting? -type, "everything is lost" ??? but with the "inaccessibility" in general class! will we install the network? or will we instruct the mines? what dear S.V. Topchiev, explain to the public ...
    1. ilya_oz
      ilya_oz 5 June 2016 19: 39
      +10
      Probably we mean that our economy will not allow us to deploy an ocean fleet of sufficient size to compete with a potential enemy. At the same time, covering your shores is a completely solvable task.
    2. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 5 June 2016 20: 54
      -2
      Andrey Yurievich (5) Today, 18:3
      Now. He will give up all his affairs and rush to push over to everyone.
      I'm afraid there is not something that is not formulated, but it is not even understood what is written and why.
    3. Vasiliev Yu
      Vasiliev Yu 6 June 2016 04: 35
      +1
      Elementary bearings for bearing. Threw and you know who goes where. Pin ... dos have been in full swing for decades.
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 6 June 2016 10: 26
        +2
        We, too, have long been using, as by the way, stationary bottom systems mentioned by the author. Just know a little, you still need to have the strength to destroy.
  4. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 5 June 2016 18: 42
    +23
    All the same, the differences between us and the Americans are huge. They do not pursue speed and depth, as well as the firepower of an atomic submarine (if we look at multi-purpose ones), they develop two directions of low noise and range of detection of the enemy (and most importantly they all said that the spherical HAK has many disadvantages, what it takes all of the submarine’s nose space and it’s necessary to place torpedo tubes on the sides, which imposes restrictions on the speed with which torpedoes can be fired, but still they started to build Ash trees with a spherical hull, parallels with PakFa all said that stealth was stupid, but they started to build their stealth fighter ), and also build a large number of submarines which makes construction, maintenance cheaper.
    And we were chasing speed and depth, many submarine projects were built in only the first instance, and after this first instance the years of research and design, I’m not talking about a lot of money.
    Take for example Apple Los Angeles with nothing particularly noteworthy submarine, the 4th torpedo tubes, not the fastest, sinks not so deep. But they were built 62 pieces from 1976 to 1996.
    And we built Pike, Pike-B, Granite, Antei, Barracuda, Condor, Komsomolets, etc.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 5 June 2016 21: 55
      +6
      Unfortunately it's true. The fleet of the USSR is a terrible vinaigrette from a huge number of different equipment.
    2. Engineer
      Engineer 6 June 2016 09: 22
      +3
      nothing you wrote about PAK FA - no one said that stealth is stupidity. Stealth at the expense of LTH - stupidity. PAK FA in terms of maneuverability is not inferior to Su-35, but it uses elements of stealth technologies. The same F-22 suffered greatly from this.
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 6 June 2016 22: 03
        0
        Quote: Engineer
        nothing you wrote about PAK FA - no one said that stealth is stupidity. Stealth at the expense of LTH - stupidity. PAK FA in terms of maneuverability is not inferior to Su-35, but it uses elements of stealth technologies. The same F-22 suffered greatly from this.


        Something our test pilots about the F-22 speak of as a great airplane ...
        The same Bogdan ... Authority?

        Only those who have never flown or seen him live and in the video speak badly about F-22 ... :)
        As in the Odessa anecdote. about "Caruso ... sang"
    3. Vladivostok
      Vladivostok 6 June 2016 09: 41
      +1
      This is a normal job. Research, design, build in one copy, run in, identify weaknesses, advantages, make corrections and only then run in a series.
    4. spravochnik
      spravochnik 6 June 2016 10: 33
      +3
      They do not pursue speed and depth, as well as the firepower of an atomic submarine (if we look at multipurpose), they develop two directions of low noise and range

      And as for the depth - they are in vain. It is believed that a boat operating at a depth of more than 1000 m becomes practically undetectable and invulnerable.
      the spherical hull has many drawbacks, that it occupies the entire nose space of the submarine and has to place torpedo tubes on the sides, which imposes restrictions on the speed at which torpedoes can be fired, but the Ash trees with the spherical hull began to be built

      And on the "Lada", with the presence of the latest SAC, the nasal position of the TA was preserved, because pseudoconformal antennas appeared, which can be given any shape.
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 7 June 2016 22: 31
        0
        Quote: spravochnik

        And as for the depth - they are in vain. It is believed that a boat operating at a depth of more than 1000 m becomes practically undetectable and invulnerable.


        A boat at a depth of 1000 meters - nafig is not dangerous to anyone. For blind and deaf.
        Read the properties of water. All kinds of thermoclines and so on.

        And torpedoes are already larger than 1000 meters go in depth.
        The MK48 and MK50 in the latest modification go down by 4000 feet. Can you translate into meters yourself?
    5. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 June 2016 17: 58
      +2
      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
      They do not pursue speed and depth, as well as the firepower of an atomic submarine (if we look at multi-purpose ones), they develop two directions of low noise and enemy detection range

      PMSM, they have four directions. The third is unification and standardization: the construction of ships in large series without fundamental changes to the project. The same "moose" were built as many as 62 pieces in just three modifications (basic; with UVP; with UVP and low noise). At the same time, the Yankees do not chase the wunderwuffel, building many strong middle peasants.
      Fourth is the regular modernization of on-board equipment according to standard programs again.
  5. Niva
    Niva 5 June 2016 18: 46
    -5
    Nonsense! The author piled everything that is possible.
    1. dvina71
      dvina71 5 June 2016 19: 04
      -6
      I agree. I read to the multiple superiority of the American submarines in the discovery of ours .. And where does this come from?
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 5 June 2016 21: 57
        +3
        Quote: dvina71
        to the multiple superiority of the American submarines in finding our

        It was twice as much. With only the third generation, acoustics became normal.
        1. dvina71
          dvina71 6 June 2016 03: 11
          0
          Quote: Dart2027
          It was twice as much. With only the third generation, acoustics became normal.

          Where did you get such data?
          1. kepmor
            kepmor 6 June 2016 08: 42
            +11
            And you talk to the submariners and you will have a more objective look at our submarine fleet.
            And the article is absolutely true! And about the idiotic personnel policy in the Navy, and about the lack of a normal basing system for submarines and NK.
            Who really served in the navy in Soviet times, he personally saw the leadership of the party and the military-industrial complex over everything reasonable!
            Before "pouring" the author and his arguments - serve with him "on iron", walk in "autonomy", and then judge the "sea", if of course your conscience allows!
            And one more thing, no academician or professor knows even a tenth of the practical knowledge and experience that ship specialists have!
            1. xtur
              xtur 6 June 2016 17: 04
              +1
              > And one more thing, no academician with a professor know even a tenth of the practical knowledge and experience that ship specialists have!

              with all due respect - ... you got excited!

              Not a single NSRC (shift supervisor of the reactor workshop) at nuclear power plants (these are people who remember all the pumps, all the plant fittings, all pipelines, all sensors, the entire control system) and will not nearly replace the NPP scientific supervisor or designer. Safety standards prohibit changes on the first circuit in general that are not agreed upon by the designers and the supervisor - this is too intelligent a field to rely on operating personnel.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 6 June 2016 20: 08
                +2
                Quote: xtur
                with all due respect - ... you got excited

                Rather, I mean something else. Researchers know how can do but don't know what do you need to do. The solution that is far from always ideal from the point of view of technology will be the best from the point of view of who will operate the equipment.
              2. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 7 June 2016 18: 09
                0
                Quote: xtur
                with all due respect - ... you got excited!

                Hehe hehe ... just academicians with professors and designed the first Soviet nuclear submarine, pr. 627, with one TA for a torpedo with a caliber of 1500 mm in length from the nose to the CPU and two 533 mm TA without spare torpedoes.
                At the sight of which the naval specialists grabbed their heads and forced to redo the entire structure. smile
          2. Dart2027
            Dart2027 6 June 2016 20: 03
            0
            The story of how the KGB purchased machines through linden firms in order to process the screws for our nuclear submarines is no longer a secret. And those who swam also heard.
          3. mav1971
            mav1971 6 June 2016 22: 04
            0
            Quote: dvina71
            Quote: Dart2027
            It was twice as much. With only the third generation, acoustics became normal.

            Where did you get such data?


            And you read about the collisions of submarines ... How do they occur. At what courses.
            and if you can treat, then you will understand everything yourself.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 6 June 2016 22: 58
              +1
              Quote: mav1971
              How do they happen. At what courses.

              The clashes occurred when the boats went almost close to each other, and ours until the collision did not suspect that an American was stealing behind them. But just to get to the boat unnoticed you need to find it first.
              1. rudolff
                rudolff 7 June 2016 00: 00
                +2
                When we talk about the lag of our submarine shipbuilding in terms of hydroacoustics, say, the American one, most often they mean two aspects: the submarine’s own noise and the noise detection distance of another ship. They fought as best they could and in many ways caught up with their opponents. But there was and remains a third aspect. On-board computer systems. Acoustics no longer sit in headphones and do not listen to the sea. Recognition, selection, comparison, processing - everything is done by a computer complex, which, in turn, is integrated into the ship BIOS. And this is a race of processors, high-speed tires, software, etc. Unfortunately, it is very difficult for us to lead in this area, and even on the domestic elemental base.
                As for why we found Elks "on the tail" only as a result of active maneuvering along the course / depth ... Traditions of dear shipbuilding, however! The main antenna of the GAK in almost all our projects is a hemisphere, truncated at the top by TA pipes. The Americans have a full and non-truncated sphere, and even carried out by the barbell almost 10 meters ahead of the end of the solid hull. Hence the differences in the parameters of the "blind" zones. And it is not always possible to release the towed one.
                1. kugelblitz
                  kugelblitz 7 June 2016 09: 00
                  +1
                  The power of the computing complex is collected from clusters, so this is not a big problem in reality. We have a CPU on the SPARC (VLIW) architecture, by the way, at one time MCST took part together with the Americans in the development of this architecture, but for some reason they were carried away by PowerPC, which they themselves buried as commercially unsuccessful, but in vain! With its then the highest characteristics. Intel also promoted its VLIW under the Itanium brand for a long time, but "regulated" the market. Because the cat cried software. AMD is trying to promote ARM processors for the server market.
                  I wonder on the basis of what processors are Americans gathering on-board computers now? God forbid x86! I will laugh like a horse! wassat
                  1. rudolff
                    rudolff 7 June 2016 12: 34
                    +2
                    What processors I don’t know on now, but on Elk ... If you are interested, read the article by I. Sutyagin:
                    US Navy LOS ANGELES NUCLEAR SUBMARINE HYDROACOUSTIC COMPLEX
                    It was published in "Foreign Military Review" 08'1995. Here is the link: http://commi.narod.ru/txt/1995/0802.htm
                    Everything is pretty detailed there.
                    1. kugelblitz
                      kugelblitz 7 June 2016 14: 43
                      +1
                      Well, it seems like the Pentagon was mainly stocked with IBM, which means that PowerPC processors are most modern. I looked at the characteristics of AN / UYK-44, an oldish system, in principle, at that time industrial computers were not inferior to them, like the processor of its design KR587, known for the CNC Racks Electronics NTs-31. There were also minicomputers of the CPU which was typed from small logic microcircuits. I didn’t study our systems on the nuclear submarine, but I guess they just typed the system out of fine logic, minus their cumbersomeness, but they are not inferior in anything in terms of performance. In general, the Americans themselves do not shy away from using old computers if they cope with their task.

                      I like the approach of our SPARC-based architecture, it scales easily and has the same performance as x86 at two to three times lower frequencies. For example, Elbrus-8C in single-precision operations easily squeezes 250 GFlops. Yes, and performance is not needed there, in general, in such electronics, the weakest point is analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converters, since the accuracy and quality of data depend on the sampling frequency, and data on one tooth is used on modern digital grinders. Say Elbrus-90 Mini used on the S-300 and S-400 can easily cope with a bunch of data at a time and also the management of the entire economy. And the ATX board is modest, for example.

    2. Kudrevkn
      Kudrevkn 5 June 2016 20: 02
      +17
      Respected! To understand the Author, you need to serve in the Navy, that is, "to be in the subject", you need to serve in command ship positions - "on your own skin" feel "all the charm of romance" of the naval service? And then, in comparison with your feelings, you can draw conclusions about whether the Author is right or not!
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 6 June 2016 13: 06
        +8
        Quote: KudrevKN
        Respected! To understand the Author, you need to serve in the Navy, that is, "to be in the subject", you need to serve in command ship positions - "on your own skin" feel "all the charm of romance" of the naval service? And then, in comparison with your feelings, you can draw conclusions about whether the Author is right or not!

        I've read this article to the end, but I still don't understand why the 705 project was no longer needed by the Navy ??? What was wrong with Lyra? Pearl that the titanium hull of the nuclear submarine "ate" the berth brought me into a stupor, the author naively believes that all ships are moored directly to the berth without fenders? Moreover, making a floating berth out of metal, forgive it is not economical. Now about the notorious "twenty-year" building ...
        K-64 laid 02.06.1968 in the ranks with 31.12.1971
        K-316 laid 26.04.1969 in the ranks with 25.07.1974
        K- 373 laid down 26.06.1975 in the ranks with31.03.1981
        What 20 years are we talking about?
        The ideas embodied in 705 Ave. were truly revolutionary. The boat was accelerated to the full speed in ONE MINUTE, a turn on 180 degrees passed in 40 SECONDS!
        High maneuverability, which, in combination with a high speed (maximum speed was gained within one minute), made it possible to get away from anti-submarine torpedoes, which were then and now armed with a potential enemy. In addition, high maneuverability allowed long-term tracking of foreign submarines.
        Ideal hull contours and split rudder stocks provided the submarine with the ability to turn almost "on the heel" at high speed. With mutual tracking of submarines in a duel situation, this did not give the enemy the opportunity to enter the stern course corners of the Project 705 nuclear submarine, where the enemy was lost as a target and from where it was possible to receive a covert torpedo strike.
        The smaller displacement (in 4 and more than that of the 3 generation submarines), and therefore the small reflecting surface of the ship, provided a significant decrease in the reflected hydroacoustic signal.
        The magnitude of the magnetic field of the titanium hull of the ship is unattainable for submarines with steel hulls.
        And finally "to be in the subject" ...
        "We, submarine commanders and submarine officers, who in the past linked our fate with the nuclear submarine of project 705 (705K), believed in these ships together with our crews, accepted them from industry, mastered their operation and combat use, carried them into combat service. We are proud to have served on these unique and sophisticated ships of the XNUMXth century. "
        Vice-Admiral V.T., Commander of the 1th Fleet of the Northern Fleet nuclear submarines Prusakov
        Rear-Admiral A.S., deputy commander of the 6th submarine division BOGATYREV,
        chief of staff of the 6th submarine division of the Northern Fleet, captain of the 1 rank P.M. MARGULIS,
        Chairman of the State Commission for the Acceptance of Submarines K-64, K-316 (project 705)
        Hero of Socialist Labor, captain of the 1 rank V.P. Rykov,
        Head of the Electromechanical Service of the 6th Submarine Division Captain of the 1th Rank V.A. DEBT,
        submarine commander K-316 (project 705) captain of the 1 rank A.F. ZAGRADSKY,
        submarine commander K-493 (project 705K) captain of 1 rank B.G. KOLYADA
        submarine commander K-432 (project 705K) captain of the 1 rank G.D. BARANOV,
        submarine commander K-123 (project 705K) captain of 1 rank V.D. HYIP
        commander of the 537 crew (project 705К) captain of the 1 rank V.T. Bulgakov
        http://vpk-news.ru/articles/3407
        hi
        1. Operator
          Operator 6 June 2016 13: 26
          0
          The liquid metal nuclear reactor is the future of the submarine fleet, most likely the first nuclear submarine where it will be successfully operated is the Husky.

          The ZHAR installed on the Lira had only two drawbacks - a small resource and the need for regular cleaning from bismuth and lead oxides under base conditions.

          The use of plutonium as a fuel makes it possible to maintain the reactor in an energy-generating state for all 25 years of service at one gas station, while eliminating the risk of solidification of the liquid metal coolant in the reactor.

          The problem with the extraction of metal oxides from the coolant remains unresolved.
  6. Amnestied
    Amnestied 5 June 2016 18: 50
    -20%
    The author of this "opus" on the "price" of liberoids.
    1. Amnestied
      Amnestied 5 June 2016 19: 13
      -11%
      To the one who slapped me a minus. Do you agree that the Americans have multiple superiority in detecting Russian nuclear submarines? Then you either go full .. from, or a liberoid.
      The boat was a breakthrough, its main problem is the complexity of operation, we need
      special pier. Due to the nature of the reactor - and it is cooled by a bismuth-lead mixture - the boat must be on a specially equipped pier. Not a very big flaw, but still.

      The reactor is almost always at full power. I.e
      wears out faster

      If the reactor stalls, then the lead hardens and the reactor becomes unusable ... that's all. paragraph.
      1. Comrade Glebov
        Comrade Glebov 5 June 2016 19: 42
        +15
        I do not give the article any plus or minus. For a damn thing in the submarine and in the Navy as a whole I do not understand. In defense of the author, I will say that to accuse anyone who criticizes us for being liberal is, sorry, a diagnosis (Putin-Medvedism of the brain). In defense of our submarines and tanks with missiles, I can say that no matter how the Yankees and NATO roars, no matter how cool and high-quality equipment they have, no matter how their invincible great soldiers are ramboized, they dare not attack us. For the fifth point is scary, and the same shit in the NATO media T-72 can kick Abram's ass. Apparently, Project 705 also contributed its contribution to our security. All.
        1. Amnestied
          Amnestied 5 June 2016 19: 57
          -11%
          Quote: Comrade Glebov
          In defense of the author, I’ll say that blaming anyone who criticizes us for liberalism is, sorry, a diagnosis (Putin’s medvedism of the brain).

          Where did you see the criticism in this article? This article is custom-made and its whole point is that the country is flawed and we are the same, re-read carefully again, I am sure you will notice it.
          Py.Sy. Perhaps you just did not read the article. hi
          1. Comrade Glebov
            Comrade Glebov 5 June 2016 21: 25
            +8
            I read the article to the end and re-read something. But (!) I have nothing to do with the fleet, as well as with the design bureaus designing submarines (I will allow myself to assume that you are too). Therefore, I can’t say anything against it, I’m just incompetent in this matter. Despite the fact that the fifth point I smell the catch and am sure that in some places in the article "the owl is stretched over the globe", and in some places the colors are too thick. The article is critical. And imagine, I myself recently published an article on VO (“How long will a man feed the generals?”) And in the same way, he was “caught” in liberalism, working for the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and God knows who else. Despite the fact that I am a member of the Communist Party. Therefore, it is premature to accuse the author of liberalism - there is no evidence, and in order to catch the hand on incompetence, specialists in this matter are needed. The latter, I think, is easier to prove by "catching" the author, for example, on too accurate knowledge of the capabilities of American submarines, such as detection range, etc. hi
            1. poquello
              poquello 5 June 2016 22: 14
              -1
              Quote: Comrade Glebov
              in the same way he was "caught" in liberalism, working for the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and God knows who else. Despite the fact that I am a member of the Communist Party.

              maybe you know what Zyuganov rubbed with the American ambassador?
              1. Comrade Glebov
                Comrade Glebov 5 June 2016 22: 36
                +4
                As for Zyuganov - I do not know. He leads the Communist Party, I'm from the Communist Party. Entered the 2009 year. Unlike the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, we aim to restore the Union and do not revise the Marxist-Leninist doctrine, but, following the example of Stalin, we develop it theoretically and put it into practice as far as possible. Also, we do not hobble with officials from the clergy and are not shy about an atheistic worldview. The top of the Communist Party today is the Khrushchevites, and we are Leninists-Stalinists. It was we who rehabilitated Stalin and reversed the decisions of the XX and XXII congresses at the XXXII party congress. Zyuganov did not go for it, Pu was afraid. Therefore, I do not want to have anything in common with him.
                1. poquello
                  poquello 5 June 2016 22: 46
                  +2
                  Quote: Comrade Glebov
                  He leads the Communist Party, I'm from the Communist Party.

                  in what, and who is the face of the party?
                  1. Comrade Glebov
                    Comrade Glebov 5 June 2016 23: 58
                    +1
                    Alexandrov S.A.
                2. Amnestied
                  Amnestied 5 June 2016 22: 54
                  -2
                  Quote: Comrade Glebov
                  . Also, we do not hobble with officials from the clergy and are not shy about an atheistic worldview.

                  Quote: Comrade Glebov
                  The top of the Communist Party today is the Khrushchevites, and we are Leninists-Stalinists. It was we who rehabilitated Stalin and reversed the decisions of the XX and XXII congresses at the XXXII party congress.


                  More precisely, the Khrushchev-Trotskyists. In this country, there are various elite groups whose interests do not coincide. They often pursue a coherent policy, no doubt if this policy is in the interest of all. If certain actions increase the available resources for all oligarchic groups, they will act in concert.
                  1. Comrade Glebov
                    Comrade Glebov 6 June 2016 00: 02
                    +2
                    It may very well be that the Trotskyists. Although the Trotskyists set the goal of a permanent world revolution at any cost and (unlike Lenin and Stalin, who saw the development of the world revolution in stages) are fanatically ready to throw peoples and countries into the "furnace" in spite of any political and strategic alignment of forces, and these gentlemen put before their goal is to stay in place and diligently play the role of "opposition".
              2. Amnestied
                Amnestied 5 June 2016 22: 49
                -3
                Quote: poquello
                maybe you know what Zyuganov rubbed with the American ambassador?

                Credit! laughing
              3. Vasiliev Yu
                Vasiliev Yu 6 June 2016 04: 52
                0
                Maybe he photographed the encryption messages that the ambassador filled himself (under the impression of the movie `` Escape ''), stupid (Zadornov won't lie) didn't know how to take selfies, had to involve Zyuganov?
            2. Vasiliev Yu
              Vasiliev Yu 6 June 2016 04: 45
              +2
              For reference, acoustics know this, the commander of the boat, the first officer there, the assistant, must know this. All this is in manuals, all etc. of a potential adversary.
    2. mav1971
      mav1971 6 June 2016 22: 12
      -4
      Quote: Amnestied
      The author of this "opus" on the "price" of liberoids.


      Buy yourself a ferrari and carry bricks on it along field roads.
      What ? Do you understand that mutually exclusive absurd things are written?
      You see. what does ferrari need infrastructure in the form of a flat highway? In the form of high quality maintenance? In the form of high-quality high-octane gasoline?
      and that Uncle Vasya from the neighboring garage will not fix it?
      And what bricks to carry on it - insanity?

      This is why you understand!

      so why don’t you realize that the 705 project - which is like a Ferrari - also needed all the infrastructure? Which really was not there.
      A masterpiece without a museum, without art historians, without guides is just a daub.
      Take it to the Papuans - and by the way ...
      Who was talking there. about the technique in the hands of the Papuans?
      The analogy is complete.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 7 June 2016 01: 17
        +2
        Quote: mav1971
        Who was talking there. about the technique in the hands of the Papuans?
        The analogy is complete.

        Those are the crews of the 705 submarine project Do you consider the Papuans?
        1. MMX
          MMX 7 June 2016 05: 17
          +4
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Quote: mav1971
          Who was talking there. about the technique in the hands of the Papuans?
          The analogy is complete.

          Those are the crews of the 705 submarine project Do you consider the Papuans?


          Obviously. If you literally interpret the expression of this master, then there can be no other conclusion. And so they agreed: the submariners are Papuans. Dot.

          PS That's what graphomania brings to the comments.
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 7 June 2016 07: 23
            -2
            Quote: MMX
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            Quote: mav1971
            Who was talking there. about the technique in the hands of the Papuans?
            The analogy is complete.

            Those are the crews of the 705 submarine project Do you consider the Papuans?


            Obviously. If you literally interpret the expression of this master, then there can be no other conclusion. And so they agreed: the submariners are Papuans. Dot.

            PS That's what graphomania brings to the comments.


            Read the text and not the letters.
            And turn on your head.
            I didn’t just give an analogy with a car - in my opinion it is clearly spelled out about the need to provide infrastructure.
            1. MMX
              MMX 8 June 2016 04: 42
              0
              Quote: mav1971


              Read the text and not the letters.
              And turn on your head.
              I didn’t just give an analogy with a car - in my opinion it is clearly spelled out about the need to provide infrastructure.


              That's just the analogy with Ferrari and confused. A very unfortunate example, since Ferrari is first and foremost (and most important) a requirement for a driver, not a service.
        2. mav1971
          mav1971 7 June 2016 07: 22
          -1
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Quote: mav1971
          Who was talking there. about the technique in the hands of the Papuans?
          The analogy is complete.

          Those are the crews of the 705 submarine project Do you consider the Papuans?


          If you read the text, not letters, you would understand what you wrote about infrastructure!!!
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 7 June 2016 14: 00
            +1
            Quote: mav1971

            If you read the text, not letters, you would understand that you wrote about the infrastructure !!!

            Certainly there were problems, boats of a new type did not have enough operational experience, but until the 90 of the boat regularly underwent dock and inter-hitch repairs for which technical crews were formed, performed the tasks of an autonomous BS, took part in various exercises and not a single submarine died this project. In 90 they quickly ended up motivating with anything, maybe they wanted to please their overseas friends.
            Specifically, can you indicate where the Papuans sat until the 90's?
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 7 June 2016 23: 06
              0
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Quote: mav1971

              If you read the text, not letters, you would understand that you wrote about the infrastructure !!!

              Certainly there were problems, boats of a new type did not have enough operational experience, but until the 90 of the boat regularly underwent dock and inter-hitch repairs for which technical crews were formed, performed the tasks of an autonomous BS, took part in various exercises and not a single submarine died this project. In 90 they quickly ended up motivating with anything, maybe they wanted to please their overseas friends.
              Specifically, can you indicate where the Papuans sat until the 90's?


              Problems?
              small?

              They were very big.
              Yes, such that the chief designer was removed from the project due to a complete failure in operational characteristics.
              The boat was kept in operation on constant heroism - this is called.
              Against all odds.

              And what happened to K-64? You know? Well, read it - I would say that if you find competent literature - you’ll simply go nuts ...

              And what happened to the experimental K-27? ha which rolled in this LMT reactor? How many people killed this reactor - do you know?
              Amers also had accidents at such a reactor and people also died from radiation - but they had enough experiments.
              But we didn’t have enough - after K-27 we destroyed another boat (K-64) with our own hands. Goldfish by the way. For its cost, it was possible to build 5-6 conventional nuclear submarines ...

              And so yes. "All is well, lovely marquise ..."
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 12 June 2016 13: 50
                0
                Quote: mav1971
                They were very big.
                Yes, such that the chief designer was removed from the project due to a complete failure in operational characteristics.

                The chief designer was removed for the reactor.
                Quote: mav1971
                And what happened to K-64? You know? Well, read it - I would say that if you find competent literature - you’ll simply go nuts ...

                The primary coolant has frozen. The reactor was shut off, there were no casualties, then the boat was sawn, a simulator was made from the bow, and everything was sent to Severodvinsk.
                Quote: mav1971
                And what happened to the experimental K-27? ha which rolled in this LMT reactor? How many people killed this reactor - do you know?

                K-27 is another project, the tragedy occurred due to a command error that sent an emergency boat on a campaign.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. Atlant-1164
    Atlant-1164 5 June 2016 19: 07
    +7
    time was such. they released everything that could harm the United States. recall the TU-22 sewn. A WELL-BEST INSTANCE WAS. how many testers. combat pilots died. and how many personnel died on the first nuclear submarines.
  9. Atlant-1164
    Atlant-1164 5 June 2016 19: 08
    +3
    It was necessary to protect their country. And no matter what. even three-line.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. your1970
    your1970 5 June 2016 19: 19
    -6
    Even in the Soviet times, the military-industrial complex built for itself awards prizes, orders, apartments .. About the present, it’s even scary to think what jungle they can crawl in order to grab a bold piece of the budget. And about the lost time that cannot be returned .....
    1. your1970
      your1970 6 June 2016 01: 05
      +10
      in the 60s, being a turner in a box with a mentor, they made a part for space, or rather a groove in it, of the highest purity. They suffered for a while, the mentor even came up with a special cutter. Once (in a couple of weeks) he goes through the territory and he sees these details at the factory dump. He caught up and ran to the elder, with him to the bosses — like, we struggled for two weeks, they were depicting cleanliness — bosses gave them prizes? Questions?. They looked at the familiar engineer, they gave the general drawings — they said the ground part, a cable goes through it, so that it doesn’t catch on anything - someone in the design bureau and wanders for reinsurance. The item turned out to be primitive ... Yes, in addition, it’s not needed either, because it went to the dump ...
      How many people have received the prize, including the bosses ???? Rationality, but why, when you can crave anything you like, blaming it on the cosmos !!!
      One plus, we know now that it’s impossible, but how much money, effort, resources and time were banged-30 years down the drain ...

      The sadness is that nobody wants to consider the experience of those boats ....

      ZY
      "Towing carrier 8AT-9800-00 (for Mi-8 helicopter).Price: 201 000 rubles. "- the current cost of a pipe with an eyelet and 2 wheels - at a real cost of 2 thousand maximum ...

      "Supply of aviation technical equipment: - Towing carrier 8AT-9800-00 - Motor heater EMP-92 Date of the auction in electronic form 03.07.2014/XNUMX/XNUMX
      Initial (maximum) contract price 1 432 099,32"-MPshka is a more serious thing, the electric engine is present again .. The price is in the cost of 20-50 thousand ....
  12. Lumumba
    Lumumba 5 June 2016 19: 25
    +12
    Plus article for an excellent analysis, supported by real facts. I would very much like the author in one of the following articles to more fully disclose the topic of the presence of dozens of projects, types and modifications of submarines in the USSR Navy, in terms of how difficult it was for maintenance and repair, how much enormous amount of resources it required, and how much it was all irrational .
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. poquello
      poquello 5 June 2016 19: 41
      +3
      Quote: Lumumba
      Plus article for an excellent analysis, supported by real facts.

      oh yeah i now know what
      An interesting solution was the remote control of feeder machines of the main switchboard.

      was interesting
    3. Amnestied
      Amnestied 5 June 2016 19: 48
      -13%
      Hey Lumumba, wrecking oozes directly from your post (I replaced the word, or you deleted the comment), you hate your Homeland so much that you don’t know the essence (and removed it here), you accuse your Homeland of wasting a huge amount of resources , and acted irrationally, who are you at all, what would you say?
  13. cap
    cap 5 June 2016 19: 39
    +15
    Interesting article. Rather suffered by a practitioner. For a brief discussion, it is difficult, both technically and theoretically.
    We can consider this appeal to the senior leadership of the fleet. Even higher.

    Quote: Amnestied
    The author of this "opus" on the "price" of liberoids.


    But this conclusion is completely wrong. The liberoids of the fleet’s problems are pig oranges. They care more and more about their belly.
    That something like this.
    1. Amnestied
      Amnestied 5 June 2016 19: 45
      -7
      Quote: cap
      But this conclusion is completely wrong. The liberoids of the fleet’s problems are pig oranges. They care more and more about their belly.
      That something like this.

      The main task of liberoids and other scum is to desecrate the country in which I was born and for which my grandfathers fought, who after the war, with their own labor restored and led my country to world leaders in all directions, and some kind of pug, who has not done anything useful in life, writes custom article, it’s subject to it.
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 6 June 2016 22: 22
        -1
        Quote: Amnestied

        The main task of liberoids and other scum is to desecrate the country in which I was born and for which my grandfathers fought, who after the war, with their own labor restored and led my country to world leaders in all directions, and some kind of pug, who has not done anything useful in life, writes custom article, it’s subject to it.


        Don’t be dumb, deer-like club!


        Normal people are not looking for flaws for your libel. but for a normal sober assessment of weaknesses and strengths. In order to eliminate these weaknesses and prevent similar mistakes in the future.
        Because. that these articles and these discussions are read not only here and now. but will be read in 3-5-10 years. That young youth who is interested in military subjects. and which subsequently will go to study and work, including among designers, shipbuilders, designers, and in the sub-melting.

        Threat.
        Do not revel in the affairs of grandfathers and do not cover them with your stupidity and stupidity.
        My grandfathers also fought. and one, having gone through the whole war, died on 2 on May 1945 of the year in Austria - does this date tell you anything, are you Khokhloma yellow-black?
        So cover yourself and don’t shine ...
        1. Amnestied
          Amnestied 6 June 2016 23: 55
          +3
          Quote: mav1971
          Do not revel in the affairs of grandfathers and do not cover them with your stupidity and stupidity.
          My grandfathers also fought. and one, having gone through the whole war, died on 2 on May 1945 of the year in Austria - does this date tell you anything, are you Khokhloma yellow-black?
          So cover yourself and don’t shine ...

          And this is written by a person who is so dumb that he cannot even express his thoughts. laughing
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 7 June 2016 07: 08
            -3
            Quote: Amnestied

            And this is written by a person who is so dumb that he cannot even express his thoughts. laughing


            Ball! you dunce!

            In the first part I expressed my intelligible thought to normal people, to which even a troll like you couldn’t say anything, and therefore merged.

            About my grandfathers - you also did not understand anything - and the date also gave you nothing. for you are the ball! You can’t move your brain! Keep yapping with your eloquent nickname ...
            The choice of nickname is indicative of its carrier.
            1. Amnestied
              Amnestied 7 June 2016 09: 07
              -1
              Quote: mav1971
              In the first part I expressed my intelligible thought to normal people, to which even a troll like you couldn’t say anything, and therefore merged.

              That's what was required to prove, on the topic that is, no? Yes, some "shortcuts" and rudeness from the self-commander of the Kriegsmarine submarine formation in the steppes, forests and mountains of the Reiskommissariats of the European Union rogue - Gerhard von Zwischen! On the move and did not recognize you in the makeup.
              There is sometimes a feeling that such topics on the resource are discussed mainly - profane, liberoids and other grandmothers from kibbutzim.

              Py.Sy.
              Sharik, moron: when to the throat of the lost Africa and the Son of the Jewish God (Antichrist) from this 404 or in this 404 your planetary Izgael, there is nothing to say even in the framework of your strategy Yerida - just shut up and you. hi
              1. mav1971
                mav1971 7 June 2016 10: 40
                -4
                Quote: Amnestied

                There is sometimes a feeling that such topics on the resource are discussed mainly - profane, liberoids and other grandmothers from kibbutzim.

                Py.Sy.
                Sharik, moron: when to the throat of the lost Africa and the Son of the Jewish God (Antichrist) from this 404 or in this 404 your planetary Izgael, there is nothing to say even in the framework of your strategy Yerida - just shut up and you. hi


                Rzhu ...
                Whose will you be, serf? :)))
                By the way, tell me, what secret thoughts made you take such a nickname?
                You are probably mentally ill, and liberal medicine has freed you from compulsory stay in special medical institutions?
                Just in all your posts, you write everyone in a row in the Jews ... indiscriminately.
                Aren't you too dumb. what would the Russian people, simply because in your head live huge cockroaches reckon with the Jews?
                You're probably really sick.
                1. Amnestied
                  Amnestied 7 June 2016 13: 12
                  +1
                  Quote: mav1971
                  Rzhu ...
                  Whose will you be, serf? :)))
                  By the way, tell me, what secret thoughts made you take such a nickname?
                  You are probably mentally ill, and liberal medicine has freed you from compulsory stay in special medical institutions?


                  The zhezh told the malan Bormental, that there was no need to remake a person into a dog, and a dog into a person. Nothing good will come of it, just like mav1971. You, as a true IT from the conquerors of time and intergalactic space, still have not understood nifiga. And therefore, you and your thinking, but physically incapable of thinking gyrus cellulite in the backseat, do not understand what they did to you, boy, or a girl - the sum, that is, the result for you from changing the places of the terms, from the word absolutely, does not change physically. wink
                  1. mav1971
                    mav1971 7 June 2016 20: 23
                    -3
                    Quote: Amnestied
                    .... what they did to you, boy, or a girl - the amount, that is, the result for you from a change of place of the terms, from the word absolutely, does not change physically. wink


                    Did you do it?

                    Do you express yourself at someone else’s expense or something?
                    Are you trying to show yourself as a dominant male on the Internet?

                    Funny.

                    Usually pimpled nerds behave this way on the Internet, which are spread rot and rile in childhood and in life.
                    and your nickname is "assigned" - like, look everyone: I'm bad, but I'm free ...
                    Inwardly, you are all the same pissed off and, no matter how you puffed up.
                    Read Psychology.
                    there like you are the heroes of the narratives.

                    Burn more.
                    I enjoy reading your pearls.
                    1. Amnestied
                      Amnestied 8 June 2016 13: 29
                      -1
                      Quote: mav1971
                      Read Psychology.
                      there like you are the heroes of the narratives.

                      Burn more.
                      I enjoy reading your pearls.


                      There are people who want to go up to them, hug them by the shoulders, look affectionately into their eyes, and ask: "How can you live without brains, eh?"
                      Unfortunately, to many in our world, the cerebral cortex is inherited from oak.
                      Sometimes I allow the poor to pamper themselves, because this is their only joy in life.
                      Sometimes I just want to hear from a person: “You know, I think I got you so sick of it. I’m going to the farm to catch butterflies.
                      Those who are often nervous will be well-calmed by the fine motor skills of their hands. For example, the figured flogging of the sciatic organ, as an option of course. Now is the time: humanity is taken for weakness, and scum and a slight degree of dibilism are considered to be strong-willed and strong. So, it’s better to be silent than to bear different heresies. Why do people not understand this simple truth?
                      The worst thing in this world is that you need to talk with degenerates. Unfortunately, instead, they cannot be trivially spanked with a belt.
                      Your brain injury was caused by something heavy and dull. Presumably a question, but this is unfortunately not treated.

                      Touche!
                      1. mav1971
                        mav1971 8 June 2016 16: 18
                        -1
                        Quote: Amnestied

                        Touche!


                        Handsome ...
                        Just handsome.

                        Just the main exhibit of this forum ...
                        We continue to watch!
                        Delivered.
                      2. Amnestied
                        Amnestied 8 June 2016 17: 37
                        0
                        Quote: mav1971
                        Handsome ...
                        Just handsome.

                        Just the main exhibit of this forum ...
                        We continue to watch!
                        Delivered.

                        You carcass, and you carry a blizzard, merged along the way. You're not interested, ages torchachos.
  • Verdun
    Verdun 5 June 2016 19: 43
    +17
    The first thing I want to remind the author is brevity is the sister of talent! The article is a real vinaigrette, from which it is very difficult to catch grains of useful information. To what you managed to catch, comments are immediately requested.
    Following the exit into the ocean, a confrontation between the nuclear submarines of the USSR and the USA began. The superiority of the opposing side was quickly revealed.
    I would like to recall that in 1966, Soviet boats, K-133 (project 627A) and K-166 (project 675) sailed around the world. They crossed the anti-submarine line of NATO at the exit to the Atlantic and visited the territorial waters of the United States. The Americans found out about this only after the USSR announced this in the news. The United States Navy flew a lot of goals. If the boats were noisy, such a trip at that time was hardly possible. This is just one example. During the Caribbean crisis, our submariners also acted quite successfully.
    Without a doubt, the leading maritime power is the United States, and Russia is firmly on the list of continental powers, despite its political structure
    Unfortunately, today the Russian fleet is really inferior in total power to the US fleet. But, since we are talking about a boat that was built during the Soviet era, it must be understood that at that time the Soviet Navy was quite comparable in strength to the American, and superior in terms of the number of nuclear submarines.
    There are many such comments on the article. As for the specific project 705 boats, we can say for sure - on new models of equipment often many solutions are tested for the first time. Of course, there are problems with maintenance and operation. By identifying these problems live, designers find ways to solve them. And this is normal. What today works unreliably and seems incredibly complex tomorrow becomes reliable and is perceived as a fully tested constructive solution. Once they did not believe in the possibility of electric welding. And what, had to refuse it? Yes, the 705 project boats were most likely raw and expensive at that time. But the development of production for the most part solves such problems. The Americans could not afford the construction of a submarine from titanium - at least on such a scale - nor even the creation of reactors of this design. This speaks only in favor of the creators of the project 705 boats. Were there any flaws and miscalculations? Surely! But without them there are no achievements.
    1. 31rus2
      31rus2 5 June 2016 20: 03
      +5
      Dear, you are absolutely right, only the USSR surpassed all NATO countries and the USA in submarines, it was then that there was parity, now we are a continental power and any of our boats is under control, with the exception of the North, what can I do, and only build and design new ones but I don’t understand if diesel-electric boats are so good, why not now configure at least them for all fleets
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 5 June 2016 20: 15
        +6
        Quote: 31rus2
        if diesel electric boats are so good

        Not so good. Even in the case when such a boat has low noise, knowing the moment it leaves the base, it is possible, due to limited autonomy, to determine both the moment of return of the submarine and the area of ​​their patrol. Limited autonomy makes such boats suitable for protecting the country's coast and controlling limited water areas. It is extremely difficult to engage such submarines in the ocean, far from the supply bases, and even more so under the ice of the Arctic.
      2. Dart2027
        Dart2027 5 June 2016 22: 04
        +2
        Quote: 31rus2
        but I don’t understand if diesel electric boats are so good, why not

        And they are being built - 6 for the Black Sea Fleet are ready, 6 for the Pacific Fleet begin construction. The problem is that they delayed while they finish the VNEU and this was a mistake. That is, the transition to non-volatile installations is certainly needed, but 636.3 will remain a quite effective argument for protecting our shores for a long time ..
        1. rudolff
          rudolff 5 June 2016 22: 21
          +4
          Significantly improve the characteristics of the 636th project would help new and long-promised lithium-ion batteries, but they have the same problems as with VNEU. They are simply not there. By the way, the same Rubin is engaged in the development of LIABs.
  • Shurale
    Shurale 5 June 2016 19: 43
    +3
    To Padem, in the main, the minus is that the article is not urapatriotic, I think there will be no complaints otherwise ...
    1. srelock
      srelock 5 June 2016 20: 51
      +9

      "remember tracking one in the med 1991..we played she played..she disappeared when she was done playing..very fast. Onlyway to truley track her was with sonobouys"
      Well, nothing .. We ourselves will overtake our achievements!
      Article minus.
      1. askold
        askold 5 June 2016 21: 43
        +2
        Wow, and the model is YOUR !!!? Thanks for the soundtrack, as I remember now - "... cold here and harsh ..."
        1. srelock
          srelock 5 June 2016 21: 59
          0
          https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXfbf0jNdQr40EdUBCu0muQ
          His model smile
  • sir_obs
    sir_obs 5 June 2016 19: 46
    +7
    Once, a professor arrived at the Academy’s Department of Automation with a proposal to automate the ascent process. The assembled ship commanders explained to the professor that ascent is an individual maneuver, and, with external similarity, there are no two alike.


    I wonder what is meant by ascent automation?
    And what are the different such ascent?

    By accepting water into ballast tanks, the boat differentiates in such a way as to have almost zero buoyancy, that is, ideally, it should not sink or float. Having a course and being controlled by horizontal rudders, it is proper and holds the desired depth.
    If you need to raise the periscope, you just need to spray it to the periscope depth, I operate the rudders. Blowing ballast and stuff is not required. Like airplanes on ships and submarines, there is an autopilot. You can set the course and depth and the automation itself will do the rest. Is it automation or not?

    In order to surface, you need to blow the middle group (if this is not an emergency outburst) and if before the personnel had to turn the Kingston drives and high-pressure air columns, now this is done by clicking the toggle switch on the control panel of the corresponding system or by pressing the button. More precisely, this was realized a long time ago, on these very 705 projects, and then on the rest.
    Is it automation or not? Or what should have been automated?
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 5 June 2016 19: 49
    +13
    The author is right in the main. The CUSTOMER must determine the parameters of the ship, not the designers. Young people are characterized by reckless decisions - a lot of sweat has been shed for this, and lives are deserved. The degree of novelty of such a technique should not go off scale. And here - in general, the concept is different. Outside, there is an environment that is fatal to humans (who does not know that a jet of water under the appropriate pressure can pierce a person through and through), uninhabited compartments with a wandering watch, everything is too, too - not reliable. But the idea of ​​an underwater fighter, insanely fast, diving very deep, practically invulnerable ... With a small crew and powerful weapons. Well, a tempting idea, isn't it? Is not it so?
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 5 June 2016 19: 59
      +9
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      The author is right in the main. The CUSTOMER should determine the parameters of the ship, not the designers.

      It so happens that the customer does not even imagine the possibilities available to scientists and designers. In the military field, where there is such a concept as "secrecy", this is found at every step. That is why there is only one possible approach. The customer should work out as clear a technical specification as possible. On the basis of this TK, several design bureaus should propose their projects. The customer must choose the best of the proposed and, if any, make comments. At the same time, the wishes of the customer must be real, and once approved TK should not be changed on the go, like a capricious lady of a dress. Even with this approach, it is not always possible to avoid mistakes and shortcomings. Especially on complex equipment, where previously untested solutions and technologies are used.
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 6 June 2016 13: 26
      +3
      The author is right in the main. The CUSTOMER should determine the parameters of the ship, not the designers.

      Only at the time of these often it was so that the customer in the person of the Navy himself did not know what he wanted, constantly changed and adjusted the technical specifications and that is why, often, the development and construction of projects was delayed for such periods.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 7 June 2016 01: 20
        0
        Quote: spravochnik
        development and construction of projects was delayed for such a time.

        Fresh example of "Gren"
  • newcomer
    newcomer 5 June 2016 19: 51
    +2
    article as an article, in principle, nothing. like “give a small heap more.” a pile of opinions and facts. “Complete superiority,” say, but what about our “pikes,” who watched the sunbathing Yankees on the beaches? So how is it ?
  • Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 5 June 2016 19: 54
    +11
    I haven't read the thoughts of an intelligent person and a professional with a capital letter, a brilliant naval officer and commander for a long time! Bravo - briefly. exactly and to the point: no lyrics of fecal ballast! Or "expert" nonsense "academician on the problems of the Fleet" Sivkov? I would like to appeal to the editors of the site "VO" - MORE THAN ARTICLES AND SUCH AUTHORS PUBLISH !!!
    1. poquello
      poquello 5 June 2016 20: 12
      +1
      Quote: KudrevKN
      For a long time I have not read the thoughts of an intelligent person and professional with a capital letter, a brilliant naval officer and commander! Bravo - briefly. accurate and to the point: no lyrics fecal ballast! Or "expert" nonsense "academician on the problems of the Fleet" Sivkov? I would like to appeal to the editors of the site "VO" - MORE THESE ARTICLES AND SUCH AUTHORS PUBLISH !!!

      so that I don’t spray heavily with saliva, I explain that the megohmmeter determines the suitability of the insulation circuit for operation, and not the degree of its wear, insulation damage is spasmodic, gradual indicators can only show humidity
      1. Mister22408
        Mister22408 5 June 2016 23: 23
        0
        Your statement is not true, especially if you do not know the state of that isolation (guests take a look), if you do not consider the magic white, of course laughing
        1. poquello
          poquello 5 June 2016 23: 40
          0
          Quote: Mister22408
          Your statement is not true, especially if you do not know the state of that isolation (guests take a look), if you do not consider the magic white, of course laughing

          but more specifically
  • Exsubmariner
    Exsubmariner 5 June 2016 19: 56
    +13
    I personally communicated with people who served on 705 Ave. They all loved and praised their ships. Which of the submariners does not like his ship, he is faster trying to merge at various headquarters on the shore. It seems that Kapraz S. Topchiev is one of those. I personally served on my ship for 19 years.
  • Skubudu
    Skubudu 5 June 2016 19: 57
    0
    But didn’t we achieve parity with mattresses with mattresses in terms of noise and detection range?
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 6 June 2016 10: 56
      +2
      Not only I "Ash", but already from pr.971 "Pike-B".
    2. mav1971
      mav1971 6 June 2016 22: 31
      0
      Quote: Skubudu
      But didn’t we achieve parity with mattresses with mattresses in terms of noise and detection range?


      2 pcs modern versus 20 pcs - parity?
  • avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 5 June 2016 20: 01
    +7
    As an uniquely land person, I read the article with great pleasure. +. It seemed to me that on this boat an attempt was made to massively introduce advanced, if not the most, ideas of their time, sometimes brilliant. But putting the golden eggs in one basket, the designer simply forgot that if you stumble, you will fly all at once.
  • sir_obs
    sir_obs 5 June 2016 20: 10
    +7
    We now turn to the second reason. If we exclude the method of comparison in time and analyze the main features of the project, it turns out that there is nothing to compare with. There was no, no and is unlikely to appear in the US Navy a series of submarines: with liquid metal coolant, a small crew, integrated automation, a titanium case, high-speed and high-frequency electrical equipment and uninhabited compartments, but with tremendous speed and noise. The Americans are building boats for the war, taking into account meaningful national and international experience, the US military-industrial complex does not weigh on the Navy.


    I would send the author to the opinion of the officers of the American Navy on this subject; he had learned a lot for himself.

    Americans have not yet learned how to work with titanium, and even then they have no need to speak. Titanium parts (chassis, for example) for airbuses and blinks are still being made in Russia.
    Speed ​​and noise are of course connected. But why does the author not mention that the speed of movement of submarines on patrol is 6-8 knots (if you take the nuclear-powered ship). Faster it would never occur to anyone to move, even if the boat can fly a bullet.
    Firstly, the noise increases at times, and secondly, you can’t hear anything yourself. Therefore, the sputum of the course can be very useful when you are already discovered, to break away from the enemy or if you urgently need to arrive in some area.
    And if the speed of the boat is 40 knots, and the torpedoes that are fired at you have 35, then you will clearly leave the attack.
    With the depths of immersion, the same story. Torpedoes have limitations on the depth of immersion and if you can’t get away from them using speed, you can go deeper where you won’t be reached.

    At that time, we gave away detection and noise control means, so we developed what worked best, while working on new GAS and reducing noise.
    And now our boats are not inferior to the Americans either in the take-off or in the hull, but in terms of immersion depth and speed they are superior, which means the commander will have an additional advantage in maneuver in a real battle.

    To talk about how it is arranged there, it is not enough to imagine the general impression, you need to know how all this is used in reality.
  • nrex
    nrex 5 June 2016 20: 21
    +8
    Article for specialists. It is very useful to acknowledge your mistakes, if any, as regards technology, in order to use this negative experience in solving new problems in the future. And if they are not recognized, then the eternal rake and bumps are provided.
  • iouris
    iouris 5 June 2016 20: 23
    +7
    Perhaps I am not well versed in the problems of the submarine fleet, but this particular project seems to me to be revolutionary and unique. The United States does not need such a boat, but it is this complex that is capable of creating a strategic balance in the ocean, threatening the AUG. The author very accurately determined that the project 705 as a combat complex did not have the proper logistics support, since it was ahead of its time. An integrated approach, in general, made a huge punch in the "thinking" of managers in the 1970-80s. There are still subjective problems today.
  • Winnie76
    Winnie76 5 June 2016 20: 41
    +7
    In fact, the author raised a bunch of fundamental problems
    1) redundant automation
    2) metal coolant
    3) increased noise
    4) leaky shutoff valves
    5) increased corrosion of steel structures
    6) non-standard electrical equipment
    7) toxic turbine oil
    8) lack of constant watch in the compartments
    In my opinion this is too much and there is nothing to upgrade. Better to build a couple of new Ashes
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 5 June 2016 21: 02
      +4
      Quote: Winnie76
      In fact, the author raised a bunch of fundamental problems
      1) redundant automation
      2) metal coolant
      3) increased noise
      4) leaky shutoff valves
      5) increased corrosion of steel structures
      6) non-standard electrical equipment
      7) toxic turbine oil
      8) lack of constant watch in the compartments

      These are not fundamental problems, IMHO. 45 years have passed since the commissioning of the first boat, the last 35. Progress does not stand still and, I think, now they are all solved, the technology has changed a lot since then. The question is, how much will such a boat with all the innovations cost? request
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 5 June 2016 21: 19
        +5
        1, 2, 8 - these are not problems at all, but achievements
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. RedBaron
        RedBaron 5 June 2016 22: 01
        +1
        So to upgrade in it at a cost will be like building a new project, everything is non-standard.
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 6 June 2016 11: 14
      +2
      The funny thing is that the author in his arguments is behind the times. The Americans, though later, come to the same.
      1. Redundant automation. The American Navy has adopted a program for a radical reduction in the number of crews. See "Zamvol" and "Tiki" mod.
      2. Speed. Increasing steadily on American submarines. What is the speed of Sea Wolfe? 35 knots, according to some sources, up to 38 knots.
      3. The immersion depth is also constantly growing. At the same "Sea Wolf" - 600m.
      So trust the conclusions of the author after this.
      Everything flows, everything changes. And what was technical adventurism yesterday is becoming the norm today.
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 6 June 2016 22: 43
        +3
        Quote: spravochnik
        The funny thing is that the author in his arguments is behind the times. The Americans, though later, come to the same.
        1. Redundant automation. The American Navy has adopted a program for a radical reduction in the number of crews. See "Zamvol" and "Tiki" mod.
        2. Speed. Increasing steadily on American submarines. What is the speed of Sea Wolfe? 35 knots, according to some sources, up to 38 knots.
        3. The immersion depth is also constantly growing. At the same "Sea Wolf" - 600m.
        So trust the conclusions of the author after this.
        Everything flows, everything changes. And what was technical adventurism yesterday is becoming the norm today.


        1. There is enough, and there is the minimum possible.
        Analogy. 11 soccer players on the field norm. 15 a lot. 8 can play too - but badly.
        The most important thing is a clear balance.
        And most importantly - in accordance with technology. Each vegetable has its own term. And Zamvolt is not a sub-melt.
        Sailing them far beyond 100 people on boats.


        2. The speed of amers does not increase. She was always in the area of ​​32 nodes. Plus or minus 2.
        It’s just that SiWolfe got more due to the ideal quality of the case and installation.
        Any nuclear boat can do more, unnecessary levels of vibration, etc. can just start.

        3. Sivulf - too expensive steel. Lots of allowing. but very expensive. Therefore, then in a large series went Virgin. With a different steel and a different depth. And the depth in 600 meters is still the limit. not working. Different things.
        1. The comment was deleted.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 5 June 2016 20: 42
    +6
    The article, in fact, is not about a specific project, but about the problems of domestic naval construction in general and in this sense is very interesting. The 705th project is certainly controversial, it has both ardent supporters and opponents, and it can be discussed for a long time. But to deal with issues of planning the construction of the fleet, as it were, is not accepted.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 5 June 2016 21: 30
      -3
      specifically about the English admiral Woodworth (even with a patret) with a smooth transition to something American

      An article to make a "goldfish" about..t, which was so expected in the navy
    2. ans
      ans 6 June 2016 15: 23
      -2
      Thanks! It looks like there is on the site, after all, reading, analyzing, sane people ... Most of the rest are stupid quilted jackets "cannon fodder" ...
    3. xtur
      xtur 6 June 2016 17: 24
      +2
      > The article, in fact, is not about a specific project, but about the problems of domestic naval development in general and in this sense is very interesting

      not arguing with the statement about the problems of planning, nevertheless, in the title of the article is precisely project 705, and in the text of the article there is a lot of not even criticism, but about the decisions of this project. At the end of the article, for people who are not familiar with the general line of development of the nuclear industry (which stubbornly seeks precisely the development of liquid metal reactors), there remains a strong belief in the dead end of this project.

      And this is a cooling of the great technical achievements of the past, which we must be proud of, because the disadvantages of this project are related to the fact that it relied on promising technical solutions that have not been completely solved to this day, but the speed of their solution directly depends on the volume of their operation.
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 6 June 2016 23: 01
        +2
        xtur. Arthur, I did not see the criticism of the project in the article. Criticism, yes. But the criticism is very respectful. An article about the problems of the fleet in general. On the example of the 705 project. With the same success it would be possible to take and "sort out the bones / frames" to Komsomolets or Anchar. This would not change the meaning of the article. Perhaps the author is biased somewhere, but I think most of the naval officers would agree with him. We've built great ships. Unrivaled masterpieces and champions. In terms of speed, depth, dimension, innovation ... But there have always been problems with the "workhorses" that would really pull the BS. Only closer to the 80s, we finally learned to do what was required for the fleet, and not for the "party and government" in the name of "catching up and overtaking." Of the multipurpose, this is 671RTM (K), which smoothly grew into 971 projects. Of the strategists, this is the entire line of 667s, which evolved to the BDRM with its RMU2. As for me, these ships are our greatest achievements. I admired and admire Lyra, or Komsomolets, but ... I would prefer to go to BS on my "animals".
        1. xtur
          xtur 8 June 2016 00: 57
          0
          Part I

          > I think most of the naval officers would agree with him

          very interesting
          if a promising, but not worked out technical solution is used, then it will not work to get an object balanced for operation. And reactors on BN, with liquid metal coolants, from the point of view of operation, have two features - significantly greater compactness and maneuverability. Both of these qualities lead to low cost and reduced noise.
          The question is that this topic is still fraught with technical problems, which implies that a certain number of insufficiently balanced submarines would still be in the fleet. And here The question of the optimal number of such submarines could be solved in Soviet times only at the level of the State Planning Commission, the leadership of the Moscow Region and the General Staff, since on the one hand the question is how much the scale of operation helps speed the solution of existing technical problems, and on the other hand, a large number of unbalanced submarines in service reduces combat effectiveness.

          But the game was worth the candle - BN reactors are actually the most promising area of ​​energy for the next 50 years, and it is developed only in the Russian Federation. This means that the most reliable, cheap, high-quality and quiet BN reactors will always be in the Russian Federation.

          To make it clear what issues can be solved in addition to the compactness of such reactors, it is worth recalling that modern reactors at low capacities (corresponding to the submarine’s quiet running) can be operated without forced circulation, that is, without pumps turned on. The combination of natural circulation with BN reactors in terms of noise level brings them closer to diesel submarines. Even the current Russian Federation could have such submarines at least a hundred, having closed for potential partners Arctic Ocean.

          This is exactly the direction that should have been developed in the second / third generation of submarines with BN reactors, and in 20 years it was possible to solve all the technical issues associated with these boats.

          In nuclear energy, the United States lagged behind / behind the Russian Federation / USSR by an infinity (this became clear only after the collapse of the USSR), today the United States does not have its own enrichment industry in nuclear energy, like England, respectively, their nuclear power plants have always been / will be worse, accordingly everything related to the use of nuclear power plants in the fleet is fundamentally wrong to check according to the example of the USA and England - namely, these countries take all the naval ones as an example for many reasons. But the question is that it is in the case of using nuclear power plants in the fleet that the example of these countries is not indicative
          1. xtur
            xtur 8 June 2016 01: 33
            0
            Part II

            > Accidents have never been taken seriously. Back in the 1980s, the term "social" sounded like a dissident, but the roots of the accident rate are social and it does not matter at what level - design, command or operational conditions will be created that will result in an accident or disaster.

            statement that goes far beyond senility. in order to prove this, we use the statement immediately following it


            > Accidentality is a product of human activity (inactivity). It is inherent not only in the fleet, but also in other high-tech industries - energy, aviation, etc. The accident rate is international. Fighting it is one of the main areas of operation of engineering systems.


            So we will take as an example nuclear energy, in terms of its level of danger, quite comparable with the armed forces, as Chernobyl proved. After Chernobyl held various design and organizational activities, and quite reliably working, and before this station was raised to an even higher level.

            Exactly the design engineer and the operating engineer are responsible for the trouble-free operation of the technical system.

            At all nuclear power plants, nuclear safety departments were created with the necessary equipment and methods for calculating the reliability and course of various accident scenarios. This is complemented by the use of emergency simulators. But I have not heard of any social events that increase accident-freeness.

            Talk about social measures to improve accident-freeness in a market economy, when any form of business social responsibility is destroyed ... As it’s fashionable to say now, I would like to know where the author gets this grass


            > A serious analysis of the causes of accidents inevitably led to the defects of the system, that is, to the zone of ideological taboo.

            Another ideological cliche. The accident at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric station made it clear how reliable reliability is connected with socialism. The pursuit of a long ruble, characteristic of a market society, destroys all security in the bud

            Accident is the problem of engineers, the rest is demagogy and slander.
            1. xtur
              xtur 8 June 2016 11: 09
              0
              Part III. Additions

              first, on the theoretical justification chosen by the author to prove why the US fleet is good, but bad in the USSR. I really appreciate the author’s desire to show his education and use the most fundamental disciplines to substantiate his thoughts ...
              But he learned these disciplines poorly, and instead of justification, he got shame and disgrace.

              first quote, then comment on it essentially

              > geopolitics explains that civilization develops in a dualistic unity. One part of the nations and the states formed by them are maritime, while others are continental. The former are more passionateare pragmatic. The social ethics of these countries is mobile, the main goal of society is enrichment. Continental countries are less dynamic, the development of society ahead of the ethical standards of public life.

              > Between the sides of the dualistic unity, there is a constant struggle, taking different forms.

              > Without a doubt, the United States is the leading maritime power, and Russia is firmly on the list of continental powers, despite its political structure.

              The first paragraph contains a whole sea of ​​completely contradictory and unsubstantiated statements affecting a whole spectrum of social sciences, everything is messed up there, and to disclose this we need to write a separate article. But I will limit myself to one thing - a statement about more passionarity marine civilizations suggests that the theory passionarity entirely passed the author - level passionarity in no way connected with the culture of society, this is one of the basic provisions theories of passionarity, passionarity this is generally a phenomenon from the realm of the collective unconscious, according to L. Gumilyov. And people whose psyche is mobile under the pressure of the desire for enrichment from the point of view of L. Gumilyov are called subpassionariesis the exact opposite passionaries

              Everything would be fine, the author is not obliged to understand geopolitics и theories of passionarity, in general, but the question is about the author’s chosen method of substantiating why the USSR fleet is worse and the US fleet better.


              In his anti-Sovietism, the author simply broke the bottom, wanting to look like an intellectual.

              Now about another aspect of the issue of the need to operate submarines with unfinished technical specifications. I have already said that BN reactors make it possible to achieve compactness and low noise, and this is precisely the technical advantage of the Russian Federation / USSR.
              It is necessary to add one more technical aspect - the use of MHD generators instead of steam turbines to generate electricity leads to a sharp increase in efficiency, and accordingly to a decrease in the size of switchgear. Among this type of generators there are those that are designed to work with liquid metal working fluids. But this direction died exactly with the death of the USSR, and if submarines with reactors in the BN were in operation, they would also have to solve technical issues related to these generators.

              In a word, from the technical side, there are so many promising, but unresolved technical issues connected with BN reactors that only their active operation in the armed forces could force the state to make the necessary efforts to resolve these issues, and in the end after several decades of efforts to gain an undeniable advantage in the production of cheap and low-noise submarines, which are vital for the Russian Federation in the confrontation with such an economic monster as the United States.
              1. Dim444444
                Dim444444 8 June 2016 12: 30
                0
                Here again - anti-Sovietism.
                But it doesn’t surprise you, by chance, that IBM and Apple make a computer better than .... oooh ... and which computers do in Russia? Because the Soviet Alpha and Diamond won the first IBM only in strength, mass and greater stability in an underwater nuclear explosion.
                Are you not surprised that a Chevrolet Corvette or a banal Ford Focus is better than a Lada Viburnum, Prior or Classic?
                Are you not surprised that Boeing is better than this or that?
                So why does it surprise you that Los Angeles was much better than any second-generation multipurpose boat and not much inferior (if inferior at all) to the third?
                The history of the Great Patriotic War taught you nothing, when half a year the former chief of the General Staff Zhukov, who smashed the Germans to smithereens at KSHU, could not recover from a complete disaster for two and a half years, lost more than 20 tanks, almost all aircraft, guns, I don’t know exactly how many millions of our soldiers? How many forces and human lives did Russia need in order not to yield, learn to fight and win again? But before the war we were the very, most powerful, most skilled, most armed ...
                And under Khrushchev we were the very best. and under Brezhnev - because we forget the lessons the fastest. And as the very best in Chechnya crap one’s pants not because a simple soldier is bad or wasn’t taught how to fly. but because the laperuses stupidly handed over all.
                And it doesn’t surprise me at all that in 60-70 with the politics of DIP (we’ll catch up and overtake) they could take any absurd decision at face value - if only it looked beautiful and scary for a person who doesn’t understand nicherta not only in military science, but even in simple economics or sociology
  • rudolff
    rudolff 5 June 2016 20: 45
    +9
    From my own experience I know that no matter how frankly a mistake is made by designers, they are never to blame. Only the crew, MTO services, less often the manufacturer. Holy cow. Is it possible to illuminate a powder warehouse with open fire in order to save electricity? Yes, in principle, it is possible, only the instruction will be longer ...
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 5 June 2016 20: 53
    +11
    I like it. A plus. The problem must always be approached comprehensively, without distortions. Understanding that a ship is a balanced thing and sometimes a race for some characteristics leads to a deterioration of others. And only war can tell who was right and who was to blame. But for some reason (hot) war, I don’t really want to, because each country developed in its own way, proceeding from its views on certain things request The author only expressed his point of view based on his knowledge and experience. Yes, there was a country with its views on the construction of the fleet, which were sometimes choked by ideology and imbalances in management, but to some extent it was leveled by the quality of brains and education. Well, and no matter how sad it sounds, the lives of sailors. That's just the system itself and did not allow to extract experience from mistakes on time and kept pushing forward. The result is known. In terms of the number of nuclear submarines, we were ahead of the rest, but because of the disgusting repair base and service, the number (especially the diversity) was inferior to the quality that the bourgeois who knew how to count money debugged with their fleet. It is necessary to correct and do not want us to step on the same rake again. It is necessary to build modern ships with bases for their maintenance, then the ships will be more at sea, and therefore the crews will receive invaluable experience in combat training.
    Personally, my opinion hi
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 5 June 2016 21: 06
    -11%
    The author is a deer. Such deer once drowned the best fighter submarine in the world and ruined the crew. Now they are "experts". To listen to what people from the NSR say about these "experts" ... It would be better if all those ... who fell at birth and hit their head on the floor somewhere in ... Nothing comes to mind except Ukraine.
    1. your1970
      your1970 6 June 2016 09: 23
      0
      Well then the fleet buried a series, since it’s so-so-so-so best ?????
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 6 June 2016 11: 17
        +2
        The fleet then buried a lot of things. In fact, myself, and not the fleet at all, but rather specific personalities.
    2. mav1971
      mav1971 6 June 2016 22: 44
      0
      Quote: sergo1914
      The author is a deer. Such deer once drowned the best fighter submarine in the world and ruined the crew. Now they are "experts". To listen to what people from the NSR say about these "experts" ... It would be better if all those ... who fell at birth and hit their head on the floor somewhere in ... Nothing comes to mind except Ukraine.


      Where were you at that time?
      Chasing the cows? Or was he standing in the stall?
  • NordUral
    NordUral 5 June 2016 21: 21
    +6
    The most important problems were touched upon, pr. 705, only their particularity, the disclosure of the difficulties in its implementation should move our leadership towards meaningful planning of military-technical construction. And the topic of aircraft carriers is touched upon absolutely rightly. As a simple techie and a simple person, I naturally have no information. what and how is planned, except for extremely conflicting information throws in the internet. But I know one thing for sure - a full-fledged AUG, even one, cannot be pulled by Russia without freezing other important DEFENSE programs.
    And yet - the author constantly throws arrows at Stalinist specialists and managers. But the bulk of decisions on pr. 705 is much later, you have to be honest and objective. Although the article itself is very informative and constructive in general, especially in the productive conclusions.
  • LÄRZ
    LÄRZ 5 June 2016 21: 21
    +7
    The article is not bad, a lot is clear. If we "squeeze it out", then in the "dry residue" we will have the following:
    At the same time, the design and implementation of such a complex engineering structure as the nuclear submarine of the 705 project should be regarded as an undoubted achievement of Soviet scientific and design schools, of the high potential of the Soviet defense industry. There is no fault of the engineers that their efforts were directed by officials away from common sense. The analyzed project should be considered encyclopedic because its operation by the fleet confirmed or refuted various kinds of design, organizational ideas, which until then had only a theoretical justification.Another lesson of the epic: extraordinary weapons systems (such as the 705-I nuclear submarine) should be designed in a comprehensive manner with elements of basic support. The latter should be built and mastered proactively. For crews, the development of the project was a real engineering school, which taught many to solve complex atypical engineering problems.
  • weksha50
    weksha50 5 June 2016 21: 34
    +10
    Hmm ... Good informational material, not devoid of logic and knowledge ...

    Unfortunately, it reminded me of a lot (by analogy) from the formation of our mobile missile systems (Pioneer, the first Topol, the first BZHRK-Molodets) ...

    Most likely, people who were far from the topic have drawn minuses ... Well, I don’t like it when they talk about the shortcomings inherent in our particular system ... But, unfortunately, they were, are and will be ...
    The author, in general, writes that in modern conditions (it takes a lot of money soon, but there is not enough money and capacity), it is necessary not to repeat past mistakes, or to minimize them ...

    Article - definitely - plus ...
  • sir_obs
    sir_obs 5 June 2016 21: 35
    +1
    Now more about the innovations. The case of titanium alloy posed several rather difficult problems. Titanium is electrochemically passive, therefore any metal, black or colored, in seawater together with it plays the role of a protector. The first titanium submarine (K-222 of the 661 project) quickly "ate" the steel melt pier due to electrochemical corrosion.

    To get out of the situation, the pier was replaced, and ocean fenders and zinc protectors were installed between the boat and the pier.

    For fifty days of combat service in the North Atlantic (water temperature not more than 2 ° C), titanium managed to completely “eat” the metal braid of outboard cables, steel protectors. There was a leak of the steel periscope stem. Titan easily identified factory marriage. It should be noted, and the complexity of the welding of titanium - only in an inert gas environment, which, of course, complicated the repair work, including inside a solid case.
    1. sir_obs
      sir_obs 5 June 2016 21: 53
      +1
      everything that I wrote was not preserved, what the ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Old26
    Old26 5 June 2016 23: 13
    +7
    Quote: Vladimirets
    Honestly, it is interesting to read about the shortcomings of the 705 project, but in the end the article turned into an ode to the American genius and Soviet stagnation.

    Speaking of the "ode to the American genius" ... In practice, the review of the American submarine fleet repeats the book "Atomic Submarines" published in the mid-60s in the Military Publishing House. And there the author spoke about the schemes for the development of nuclear submarines in the United States. For obvious reasons, nothing was written about the Soviets at that time.

    Quote: Mavrikiy
    Sorry, I didn’t read the article. Just understand - crap.

    You have almost literally repeated that textbook character who, in relation to the book "Doctor Zhevago", once said: "I have not read the book, but I know that it is anti-Soviet" ...

    Quote: dvina71
    I agree. I read to the multiple superiority of the American submarines in the discovery of ours .. And where does this come from?

    Where from? Unfortunately, not from official sources. There has never been anything said about the backlog of our naval equipment. Although the employees on the boats said, incl. and that the Americans discovered us much earlier than we did them. That was and is. And here there is no need for hatred statements, but it is necessary to solve problems. Forty years already they say that it is time to switch to single-hull boats ... And have you switched?

    As for the military-industrial complex. Alas, sometimes they really acted according to the principle "take what they give." And the result was especially visible in the fleet, most prominently. Look at the ship composition of the Soviet Navy. A series of ships and submarines of 4-6 hulls. And in the same Strategic Missile Forces in the early 60s - mid 70s, things are no better. When they released ICBMs in the amount of 3 dozen. Two complexes were installed in parallel, one of which did not correspond to the TTZ only "so as not to offend people, they worked after all."

    I understand that it’s unpleasant to read such articles. After all, we always thought and believe that we have all the best. But such articles are needed to know how it was in reality. Plus article for interesting material ...
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 5 June 2016 23: 29
    0
    Quote: rudolff
    From my own experience I know that no matter how frankly a mistake is made by designers, they are never to blame. Only the crew, MTO services, less often the manufacturer. Holy cow.



    Have you read the conclusions of state commissions? It is easier to give the BKZ crew wholesale and admit the guilt of the production workers. Statistics s.
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 5 June 2016 23: 45
    -1
    Quote: Rurikovich
    but because of the disgusting repair base and maintenance


    I wish you were on the "Zvezdochka" ...
  • rudolff
    rudolff 6 June 2016 00: 00
    +2
    I got acquainted. The "wholesale" crew is not punished. Manufacturers are not designers.
  • navy33
    navy33 6 June 2016 00: 08
    +2
    An interesting article, I agree with many things, but the author went over the accident rate and the inability of the personnel of the submarines to act in an emergency. In RBZH PL-72, everything is clearly stated, and it is written taking into account ALL accidents that occurred before the writing of this Guide.
  • iliitchitch
    iliitchitch 6 June 2016 00: 59
    +1
    "The likely enemy is the United States, as a rule ..." And who else, huh? South Africa, not otherwise. Again, there are many beeches in the article.
  • SergeBS
    SergeBS 6 June 2016 02: 20
    0
    Quote: iliitch
    AUG forms the basis of shock formations implementing the tactics "fleet against shore" at distances of several thousand kilometers. The importance of naval aviation in armed struggle is so obvious that the author considers further narration about it unnecessary.

    How interesting. What about the range of carrier-based aircraft? At least one thousand kilometers typed? laughing
    And in AUG there are no other planes. Kamikaze will fly?
    So really - about carrier-based aviation: "the author considers further narration about it to be superfluous." Well, there is no one in a thousand kilometers. From the word at all. Not to mention the "several thousand".
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 June 2016 18: 42
      0
      Quote: SergeBS
      How interesting. What about the range of carrier-based aircraft? At least one thousand kilometers typed? laughing
      And in AUG there are no other planes. Kamikaze will fly?

      Back in the 80s, in the Western Military District, there was a scheme for organizing an aircraft carrier aviation strike against the KUG of a potential enemy at a distance of 600 miles. At that time, "intruders" acted as refuellers. Now, EMNIP, "supernets" can work as refuellers.
      1. SergeBS
        SergeBS 11 June 2016 22: 42
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Back in the 80s, in the Western Military District there was a plan for organizing an aircraft carrier strike on a missile defense of a potential enemy at a distance of 600 miles.

        And this is 1000 km, but not several thousand. When the "focus" of refueling is not easy at all. Without him - and this is not.
        "Several thousand" is at least 2 thousand.
        If you talk like that (with refueling), then any aircraft with a refueling system - with an infinite radius of action (theoretically). Only practically - no.
  • Peter Romane
    Peter Romane 6 June 2016 03: 13
    +3
    The initiator of the construction of the atomic fleet was a rank-and-file officer of the US Navy, a low rank, a representative of the engineering, and not the command corps, of the officer corps of the US Navy.


    "Human G. Rikover was born on January 27, 1920 in Russia in the city of Makov. When he was 6 years old, his family moved to Chicago."
    "Admiral Human G. Rickover, the father of the nuclear fleet, was able to convince the military in Congress to build a prototype nuclear submarine that would later become the Nautilus."
    "Former US President Donald Carter spoke of Rickover as a legendary man in the Navy."

    M. DiMercurio and M. Benson "Submarines" Alfa Books Pengium Group USA Inc.
  • VP
    VP 6 June 2016 04: 05
    +2
    US military-industrial complex does not dominate the Navy

    Yeah, right now.
    And dominates the Navy, and dominates the Air Force, over the land ...
    Maybe for the 70s and 80s this was true, but in the era of the Zumwalts, F-35, "electromagnetic guns" this statement has lost its relevance.
  • tolmachiev51
    tolmachiev51 6 June 2016 05: 40
    +1
    The article is "heavy" but informative and we got it, as always, "cutlets separately, meat separately." Our "wise" bureaucracy, coupled with the lack of coordination between the designers and the Navy, ruined the project.
  • Zomanus
    Zomanus 6 June 2016 06: 07
    +1
    The author is well done, from the heart. And most importantly, everything is clearly stated.
  • Old26
    Old26 6 June 2016 06: 41
    +4
    Quote: Verdun
    It so happens that the customer does not even imagine the possibilities available to scientists and designers. In the military field, where there is such a concept as "secrecy", this is found at every step. That is why there is only one possible approach. The customer should work out as clear a technical specification as possible. On the basis of this TK, several design bureaus should propose their projects. The customer must choose the best of the proposed and, if any, make comments. At the same time, the wishes of the customer must be real, and once approved TK should not be changed on the go, like a capricious lady of a dress. Even with this approach, it is not always possible to avoid mistakes and shortcomings. Especially on complex equipment, where previously untested solutions and technologies are used.

    You are absolutely right. That is exactly what should happen ideally. And the customer should not change the technical specifications, shy away from side to side. Although the adjustment is not only acceptable, but sometimes necessary. But it is an adjustment, not a complete replacement of TK.
    But there is another factor here. Unfortunately, the complication of technology after the war led to the fact that design bureaus became "highly specialized". And sometimes it became impossible to hold a "competition" precisely because "Rubin" was engaged in one class of boats, "Malachite" in another, "Lazurit" - in the third. The same thing happened much later in aviation. "Narrow specialization". Nowadays the buzzword is “optimization”. Nafig keep 3-4 KB. Let's combine them. Well combined. So? The competition is no longer working, since there is only one design bureau in the country that is engaged in this. And then - "take what they give."
    Maybe you need to change the ordering system? To put both the customer and the contractor in a more complex framework, so that it doesn’t turn out that the boats or ships were built for 20 years?
  • VP
    VP 6 June 2016 06: 48
    0
    Quote: tolmachiev51
    Our "wise" bureaucracy, coupled with the lack of coordination between the designers and the Navy, ruined the project.

    And what does the bureaucracy have to do with it?
    The first projects of the boat, no one else knows what to be an atomic submarine, which should be paid special attention. What is the role of bureaucracy? Yes, no.
    And why do you so firmly believe that the Navy simply did not take any part in deciding on the design and determination of the appearance of the boat, its capabilities?
    Can you even imagine such that the Navy command was informed after the fact, already when the submarine was transferred?
    Me not.
    None of the military-industrial complex enterprises would simply be given the go-ahead for design if it were not for the approval of the military - the projects of the first nuclear submarines are grandiose in terms of scientific complexity, in technological, in the level of complexity of tasks being solved, in the degree of cooperation, in novelty, in costs, so that Someone decided "oh well, nafik these warriors, let's do it here, push it, maybe they'll come in handy."
    As it was written above - an article from the category of "a trench lieutenant's view of a front-line operation. Those. interesting but not at all true.
  • Yarik
    Yarik 6 June 2016 07: 00
    +1
    First, what to compare with? The cycle of design, construction and transfer to the fleet (as they said earlier: the transfer of the submarine to the treasury) was delayed for twenty years. Unprecedented.

    Yeah. They laid a completely modern steamship-frigate, transferred to the treasury in 20 years ... and somehow the "partner" had dreadnoughts.
  • Amurets
    Amurets 6 June 2016 07: 22
    0
    Quote: Old26
    Maybe you need to change the ordering system? To put both the customer and the contractor in a more complex framework, so that it doesn’t turn out that the boats or ships were built for 20 years?

    Volodya! Hello! I also read everything carefully, I agree with something, but I have my own suggestion: can you return to the practice of imperial times? That is, to the system of fines and bonuses throughout the entire complex of the ship and to allow acceptance by systems so that the made and tested systems of subcontractors are paid as soon as they are ready. The system is described by R.M. Melnikov, Stepanov, Tsvetkov on the construction of combat ships of the RIF.
    1. your1970
      your1970 6 June 2016 09: 31
      +1
      If you go back to tsarist times, to those ways of working in the army / navy - who will cancel M. Kshesinskaya?
      Our draws / sings ...
      1. VP
        VP 6 June 2016 09: 52
        0
        I also thought about the "practice of tsarist times" because of which our fleet poured into one gate to the Japanese
      2. Amurets
        Amurets 6 June 2016 11: 24
        0
        Quote: your1970
        If you go back to tsarist times, to those ways of working in the army / navy - who will cancel M. Kshesinskaya?
        Our draws / sings ...

        Ksheshinskaya had nothing to do with it, it was like a lobby and pushed orders. And I offer a phased method of payment and a bonus system for fulfilling the order on time and according to TTZ. All this was accepted by the commission at the plants, which included senior ship specialists.
        1. VP
          VP 6 June 2016 12: 32
          0
          And why do you think that now the deadline is something commonplace that does not have any consequences for anyone?
          As far as I am aware, now many are starting to try to push themselves away from defense orders due to the not so significant profitability, the complexity of many procedures, especially financial, a large volume of obligations that follow the taking on of the state defense order and, in turn, not so much responsibility for the Defense Ministry itself for non-compliance with obligations already by them. Moreover, the failure of the Ministry of Defense's obligations on timely and agreed payment is not a reason for disrupting performance. Like "and you can go without money, get into debt, it doesn't matter to us, the main thing is that you have time to schedule"
      3. Vasiliev Yu
        Vasiliev Yu 6 June 2016 16: 22
        0
        Not everyone understood the analogy with Vasilyeva.