“The States, unlike Russia, have long gone down the path of reducing the types of submarines in order to maximize their unification … the only multipurpose boat of the future should be Virginia. And the only strategic one will remain "Ohio" for a very long time.
(From the article "The last century. What will the rejection of the anaerobic installation turn into for Russia.")
The strict unification of foreign equipment and the inconsistency in the composition of the domestic fleet is not news at all, but a reality. Abroad, they have long learned to build a series of ships of the same type, the designs of which do not become obsolete and do not require changes over the course of decades.
This could have been completed. But…
* * *
In the classification system of foreign ships, there are the concepts "Bach", "Block", "Phase" or "Flight" (1, 2, 3 …), meaning different modifications of the same project.
Did I write "the same project"? Sorry, repeated the prevailing delusion.
The Virginia program took almost 30 years to complete. When the last submarine comes into service, the life of the head will come to an end. Hence the simple question. Someone seriously thinks that the Yankees have been going to "stamp" the same design for thirty years?
Of course not. Under the name "Virginia" they hide at once three different types multipurpose submarines.
"Virginia" "Block-1" and "Block-2" - the "original" series of 10 ships. The differences between the first "blocks" were in the peculiarities of assembling submarines from ready-made sections and in making purchases.
Virginia Block-3 and Block-4 are a series of 18 units that can be safely considered a separate project. According to naval tradition, they can be called North Dakota-class submarines, after the lead ship.
They have rebuilt their entire nose: instead of a spherical GAS, for the first time in the world, a horseshoe-shaped antenna LAB (Large Aperture Sonar) has been installed. In other words, a key component of the submarine was affected during the construction of Block 3. These changes in the appearance of the SAC inevitably led to global changes in the operation of the BIUS, computing systems and weapons control facilities.
Simultaneously with the GAS, the composition of the armament was revised - instead of 12 separate missile silos in the bow, each "Virginia Block-3" received two six-shot "revolvers".
The operational qualities and hydroacoustic appearance of the Virginia are being improved - the penultimate submarine Block-3 and all subsequent Block-4 (probably) will be equipped with a new design water cannon built with the use of composites.
The last sub-series, Block-5, or Virginia VPM, is another story altogether. Its hull is longer than its predecessors by as much as 25 meters, with all the ensuing changes in the control systems of the submarine and its characteristics.
VPM, or Virginia Payload Module, means an extra compartment in the middle with four large diameter shafts (seven Tomahawks each). Taking into account the changes that Block-5 will inherit from Block-3 and Block-4, and other, as yet unconfirmed, but expected innovations of the coming decade, the degree of difference between the "Virginias" of the first and the last subseries will correspond not only to ships of different types, but to different generations!
Supporters of the official point of view may disagree, referring to the unification of individual units and a single power plant for all Virginias (S9G reactor).
In this case, all multipurpose submarines of the Russian fleet - Project 945 Barracuda, Project 945A Kondor, Project 971 Schuka-B, as well as promising 885 and 885M (Ash) can also be considered modifications of one project. Over the past 40 years, the power plant of all Soviet / Russian submarines has invariably consisted of an OK-650 nuclear steam generating unit based on a pressurized water-cooled thermal neutron reactor with a thermal capacity of 180-190 MW.
Further.
The implementation of shipbuilding programs takes decades. To date, in addition to 17 Virginias, 3 Seawulfs and 4 Ohio, converted into conventional weapons carriers, the US Navy operates 32 Los Angeles-class submarines, the construction of which was completed in 1996. In view of its obvious number and high combat qualities, Losi will continue to be the main project of a multipurpose submarine for at least another ten years. Then the inevitable will happen - their niche will be occupied by the "Virginias" that are outdated by that time, which will have to serve along with the submarines of the next generation.
There can be no talk of any "single multipurpose boat of the future". This is not possible for purely organizational reasons.
As for the Los Angeles, it took 24 years to build, and the result is a fun zoo.
Officially, all "Losi" are divided into three subseries (Flights 1-3). The latter sub-series is sometimes referred to as "Superior Los Angeles". In fact, there is not much left of Los Angeles, and we can talk about an independent project. The only thing that has changed is that everything has changed.
The rearrangement of the bow was caused by the desire to place 12 cruise missiles on board in vertical launchers.
The BIUS has changed (in fact, on the first boats of the project, there was no unified information and control system).
Externally, the "Improved Elk" is distinguished by the absence of horizontal rudders on the sides of the cabin - they were moved to the bow of the hull. To ensure the possibility of surfacing in ice.
The sonar has been updated. New types of weapons appeared in the armament of the boat (Captor mines). The design of the reactor core and the power plant mechanisms (Performance Machinery Program Phase I) was changed.
Along with the official sub-series, there were little-known "collectible" copies of "Elks". Like our experimental "Barracuda" with a titanium hull, two boats with a hull made of high-strength HY-100 steel (Albany and Topeka from the Improved Elk family) were created overseas. By the way, the rest of Los Angeles were built from HY-80 steel. Data on diving depths are traditionally classified, however, experts estimate the maximum depth value for boats made of steel HY-80 - 550 meters, for HY-100 - 690 meters.
Since we have touched on the HY-100, it is worth remembering about the "white elephants" - three submarines of the "Seawulf" type, because it was in the process of their construction that this steel grade was supposed to be used. In fact, there are not three Sivulfs, but two. The third, Carter, is an independent project. It was built six years later and was 30 meters longer than its predecessors.
* * *
If we exclude from the calculations the experimental samples - "Komsomolets", "Glenard Lipscomb", a limited series of lethal "Lear", then the following will become clear.
As part of each fleet during the Cold War, there was one main line of construction of multipurpose submarines. The Americans first built and modernized the "long" and "short" modifications of the Stejens, then modernized the Los Angeles for a quarter of a century. The Soviet Navy was moving in the same direction.
In domestic practice, changes in the project were accompanied by a change in letter indices, 671 → 671RT → 671RTM and 671RTMK. Despite the general continuity, appearance, layout and, often, the use of the same mechanisms and reactors, these boats were not considered modifications of the basic 671 project. And they were considered as independent projects.
Unlike the Americans, who did not single out boats carrying cruise missile silos into a separate class of submarines, while we had several SSGN projects that were considered a separate type of naval weapon.
The main SSGN project was the 670 Skat and 670M Chaika, successful, practical, but little-known (in contrast to the record Anchar and Lear) submarines, unified in many units with the 671 family. Subsequently, they transferred their watch to the 949th "Antey".
Currently, both classes of submarines (multipurpose and submarine with cruise missiles) have merged into a single project 885 "Ash".
* * *
A few words about strategic boats.
Throughout the Cold War, the American nuclear arsenal was stationed aboard 41 submarines of five different designs (41 for Freedom Squadron). Until Ohio came along.
The success of the Ohio SSBN was based on the achievements of the US chemical industry. Which, half a century ago, presented the fleet with powder compositions capable of ensuring stable combustion and use in ballistic missile engines. As a result of the long-term evolution of the Polaris and Poseidon SLBMs, a family of very successful Trident-1/2 missiles was created.
"Trident" is basically a powder checker, wrapped in fiberglass. Of course, close up it is a vintage masterpiece from the 1970s: what is the worth of a recessed solid propellant rocket nozzle swinging in two planes in each of the three rocket stages! Among the records - the highest thrust of the first stage (91,170 kgf) among all solid-propellant SLBMs, and the second among solid-propellant ballistic missiles after Minuteman-3.
But in general, a powder keg, which itself is a combustion chamber. Exceptionally easy-to-use ammunition.
Our designers had a more difficult time - the core of the naval nuclear forces was traditionally made up of boats equipped with liquid-fueled SLBMs, in parallel with which attempts were made to create solid-propellant missiles and their carriers.
A liquid fuel rocket is a complex and expensive mixing head, turbopump units, and shut-off valves. The advantage is more starting impulse. The disadvantage is the long length (hump on domestic submarines), laborious prelaunch preparation without the possibility of canceling the launch (a dangerous process of draining the TC is required, after which the damaged rocket will have to be carefully unloaded and sent back to the manufacturer).
Practice has shown that for submarine cruisers, more simple-to-operate missiles with a turbojet engine are preferable.
Work on the creation of solid-propellant SLBMs first led to a dead end - to the creation of 90-ton missiles and giant-sized "Sharks". At present, with the birth of the Bulava, the possibility of a complete transition of the submarine fleet to solid-propellant rockets has emerged. In the future, the only type of carrier will be various modifications of the Project 955 Borey submarine cruisers.
* * *
Therefore, conversations about how abroad "have long gone along the path of reducing the types of submarines" do not make sense. The domestic submarine fleet has also always strived to create the main project of a multipurpose and strategic submarine based on the most successful solutions. But in practice it looked completely different.
For purely technical, organizational and many other reasons, you will never meet two identical ships.
The real problem lies only in the fact that the serial construction of ships has not been carried out in our country in recent decades. The mountain gives birth to a mouse every time. A single copy every five years. Therefore, there is nothing to compare with "Virginia" and its modifications, to study and compare.
