Why the transformation of "Dmitry Donskoy" into a carrier of 200 "Caliber" is a bad idea


In five years, our last strategic submarine missile cruiser Dmitry Donskoy of Project 941 (Shark) is to be decommissioned and scrapped. However, among the expert community, the idea of ​​modernizing an elderly nuclear submarine and extending its life as a carrier of cruise missiles is quite popular. Is it really worth getting involved with such a "renovation", let's try to figure it out.


Project 941 "Akula" has no analogues, these are the world's largest "nine-story" submarines, the exceptional dimensions of which were determined by the impressive dimensions of the R-39 (RSM-52) ICBMs. Initially, it was planned to build 12 nuclear submarines of this series, then their number was reduced to 10, in the end it turned out only 6. To date, 3 "Sharks" have already been dismantled with active financial "assistance" from the United States and Canada. Arkhangelsk and Severstal are in the queue for disposal, their missile silo covers have been cut down at the request of the same Americans. Only "Dmitry Donskoy" with the tactical number TK-208 remains in the ranks, and it is around his fate that spears break for several years.

Since the R-39 intercontinental ballistic missiles, the carrier of which the "Sharks" were developed, were discontinued and liquidated, the last nuclear submarine of this series in 2002 was converted into an experimental submarine. It was on it that the Bulava ICBM, created for the promising projects 955 and 955A, was originally tested. Today the Boreis are being actively built, and the Bulava has been put into service. Now the question is about the future fate of "Dmitry Donskoy", which is the oldest in the series of Soviet submarines. Since its maintenance costs the budget 300 million rubles a year, it is proposed to be sent to open-hearth after its brothers. But there is also an option with "renovation".

What exactly do they propose to do with the "Shark"?

High-ranking Russian military officials point out that due to the submarine's exceptional size, it can be converted into a carrier of cruise missiles "Caliber", "Onyx" and hypersonic "Zircons", which can be combined with up to 200 units. Say, in this way we will create in the oceans a great latent threat to the American fleet and the United States itself. Indeed, there are successful examples of the modernization of old Soviet ships, for example, the Admiral Nakhimov TARK of the Orlan project. The unparalleled powerful nuclear cruiser is now literally stuffed to capacity with modern weapons and equipment, and other surface ships are being modernized at the same time. The idea to renew and give a second life to "Dmitry Donskoy" has a right to exist, but there are important nuances.

At first, as part of a deep modernization at the old nuclear submarine, it is necessary to replace the old reactor and install modern equipment, which in itself is not a cheap pleasure. Detractors from The National Interest note that the outer steel shell and the inner titanium hulls of the submarine will also have to be replaced. In general, it turns out a kind of "porridge from an ax", in fact, you need to reassemble a giant submarine. Moreover, even an artificially extended service life will be inferior to new nuclear submarines.

Secondlydespite the "renovation", structurally "Dmitry Donskoy" will remain an outdated submarine with two propellers, which makes it quite noisy. In fact, this means that it is not a real threat to the US Navy, since it can be relatively easy to detect. And its destruction in the event of a real war will lead to the loss of 200 cruise missiles at once. It will be possible to actually use the "Shark" only against opponents of a lower order, some "barmaley" in the desert, demonstratively striking their sheds and "carts" with expensive "Calibers".

ThirdlyAs military experts rightly point out, at the cost of modernizing one Dmitry Donskoy, two brand new Boreas can be built at once. It is not entirely correct to draw a direct analogy with the surface fleet here, since we really did cry for the DMZ ships, and it is justified to modernize old cruisers and frigates, but with submarines everything is more or less good.

Finally, the funds that will require the "renovation" of the old nuclear submarine can be used to develop a multipurpose series of low-noise fifth-generation submarines "Husky", which will submitted and in the form of SSBN, and in the form of SSGN, where you can cram to failure "Caliber" and "Zircon". "Shark", of course, it is a pity, it is a symbol of the departed militarytechnical the power of the USSR, but today it really looks like an atavism. In conditions of budget deficit, funds should be spent rationally.
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Just a cat Offline Just a cat
    Just a cat (Bayun) 18 January 2021 12: 14
    0
    Project 941 "Akula" nuclear submarines, deprived of ICBM stocks and decommissioned from the Northern Fleet, could become carriers of non-nuclear missiles "Caliber". This opinion was expressed by a highly authoritative expert in naval circles - Vice Admiral Oleg Burtsev, in the recent past - First Deputy Chief of the Main Staff of the Russian Navy.
    And as an example of such modernization, the admiral cited the US strategic submarines of the Ohio type. Before, they all had Trident-1 ballistic missiles in their silos. And now four ships of this type have been re-equipped, each carrying 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    https://rg.ru/2019/03/22/podvodnyj-raketodrom-akuly-predlozhili-vooruzhit-sotniami-kalibrov.html
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Vladimir Tuzakov (Vladimir Tuzakov) 18 January 2021 12: 42
    0
    There is no need to alter anything with the series of the remaining three "Sharks", use them as floating batteries of missiles "Bulava" when docked, and put them in remote areas of the Northern Fleet and TF and possibly drag them regularly (even in tow), changing their deployment locations - a kind of sea " Barguzin "... The costs are very small, the strategic effect is significant ...
    1. mark1 Offline mark1
      mark1 18 January 2021 13: 06
      0
      Rather as a submerged part of stationary combat platforms. And place it on the sections of the NSR.
    2. Kristallovich Online Kristallovich
      Kristallovich (Ruslan) 18 January 2021 13: 09
      0
      use as floating batteries of Bulava missiles when docked

      It's brilliant (no)
    3. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 18 January 2021 13: 20
      +1
      Quote: Vladimir Tuzakov
      use them as floating batteries of Bulava missiles when docked, and place them in remote areas of the Northern Fleet and TF, and possibly drag them regularly (even in tow), changing their deployment locations - a kind of sea "Barguzin".

      The catch of "Barguzin" is that it is constantly on the move and its whereabouts are not known exactly. How do you imagine such dragging and dropping? How can all this be protected from guaranteed destruction? Should I put the S-400 on the pontoons?)))
      And if something is to be hidden and carried around, then there is no need to invent anything new. There is already https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B1%D1%80-%D0%9A
    4. alex5450 Offline alex5450
      alex5450 (Alex L) 22 January 2021 21: 19
      -2
      To begin with, do you propose to spend a bunch of dough in order to install expensive Bulava complexes on ancient platforms, and then carry them on a leash? ) Why then even a submarine - take a barge.
      1. Vladimir Tuzakov (Vladimir Tuzakov) 23 January 2021 12: 05
        0
        The device of launching ICBMs and "Bulava" with all the support is a very expensive pleasure, and here everything is ready. Your idea of ​​a barge is worthy of attention, the idea of ​​disguising it as a barge or other widespread aircraft from aerial surveillance with a decorative superstructure, which brings it closer in efficiency to the sea "Barguzin" ....
        1. alex5450 Offline alex5450
          alex5450 (Alex L) 23 January 2021 17: 50
          -2
          What do you mean by "Everything is ready"? Two buildings are in pre-utilization condition. Only "Dmitry Donskoy" is on the move, which has not undergone a complete re-equipment for "Bulava". As a result, to fence some kind of modernization project around one outdated building ... so-so idea.
          Why waste naval missiles on a dubious barge when you can mount them on a modern combat platform?
          As for the land-based "Barguzin" -jd, even its implementation raises a lot of questions. There is already an alternative - mobile missiles are in service - is it worth spending the extra money.
          1. Vladimir Tuzakov (Vladimir Tuzakov) 23 January 2021 18: 22
            +2
            They did not understand why the Orlans, Tu-160, Il-114, T-72, etc. are being revived ... The money is orders of magnitude less, and the combat capabilities in modern re-equipment are not worse ... The same will be with the use of nuclear submarines Sharks in the new appointments where even significant re-equipment is not required, ...
            1. alex5450 Offline alex5450
              alex5450 (Alex L) 23 January 2021 18: 56
              -2
              With Orlan, everything is clear - we simply have no alternatives to him - all that the industry can give us is corvettes and a few frigates. Therefore, it ("Nakhimov" - he is the only one) began to modernize. Tu-160 and 114th are not modernizations - in fact, new production of what we still know how to do. The T-72 is a real modest upgrade for little money.

              But to revive from the ashes an old "non-standard" submarine, even if in the form of some kind of half-barge, is NOT saving money. These are high costs with a dubious outcome. And what is most important, this project has modern analogues.
              1. Vladimir Tuzakov (Vladimir Tuzakov) 23 January 2021 19: 16
                0
                Do not compare a fly with an eagle ... ICBMs are strategic, the rest are only midges with "calibers" ... Therefore, the significance of the new strategic ICBM launchers with nuclear weapons is incommensurable, this is the main thing you did not notice ...
                1. alex5450 Offline alex5450
                  alex5450 (Alex L) 23 January 2021 20: 28
                  -2
                  What does the eagle fly have to do with it? The money is one - rubles. And the budget is one.
                  The importance of course is high - that is why the ancient trash from the distant past will give way to new submarines. )
  4. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
    Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 18 January 2021 13: 22
    +2
    The hull of submarines of the Akula series was made with a huge margin of safety, which made it possible to break through the ice in the Arctic without worrying about its thickness. Titanium structures are almost eternal, especially with the safety margin that is available on titanium submarines. So this argument is stupid and untenable, especially from some American hacks who are vitally interested in decommissioning Akula-type nuclear submarines ... At the expense of replacing the reactor, this may have to be done, or perhaps not, and will only cost a reboot nuclear fuel. The relative noise of the submarines, yes, there is, but it is not as great as it seems. Submarines of the Akula type are proposed to be converted into a carrier of cruise missiles, and their ranges today are such that submarines do not have to come close to NATO military bases in order to launch missile strikes. For example, the range of the X-101 (X-102) missile, which they want to adapt for launching not only from aircraft, but also ships and submarines, with conventional and nuclear warheads, is about 5500 km. The range of naval missiles Caliber 3500 km, new Caliber-M 4500 km. The range of the new Onyx-M anti-ship missiles is 800 km, the former Onyx anti-ship missile system flew 300 km. So, as you can see, nuclear submarines with cruise missiles do not have to approach NATO bases too close, where it will be relatively easy to spot. And the ocean is big and finding a `` needle in a haystack '' in it is problematic. Submarines impa Akula are good because they have an excellent, very durable hull that can break thick ice, they can be equipped with hundreds of cruise missiles, and the conditions of service for the crew are very good, which allows them to stay at sea for a long time, keeping the crew fresh for Personally, I am for the overhaul of all the remaining Akula-class nuclear submarines and titanium nuclear submarines of Soviet projects. These boats can still serve, if not in the first line, then in the second one and serve well.
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 19 January 2021 08: 18
      -1
      Quote: Sapsan136
      Personally, I am in favor of the overhaul of all the remaining nuclear submarines of the Akula type and titanium nuclear submarines of Soviet projects. These boats can still serve, if not in the first line, then in the second one and serve well.

      They can, only decisions are not made by us, and there is little money in the treasury. We will see.
      I myself like this project, there is something truly majestic in it, like in "Eagles".
      1. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
        Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 19 January 2021 22: 10
        +4
        Is there little money in the treasury? So let them save on sleeping and singing `` Murka '' in the State Duma parasites, patriots of foreign states lost in the Russian Federation and Yankee lackeys, such as Chubais.
        1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
          Marzhecki (Sergei) 21 January 2021 09: 11
          0
          I am for it" smile But who will do it?
    2. alex5450 Offline alex5450
      alex5450 (Alex L) 22 January 2021 21: 21
      -3
      But "Shark" (Project 941) is not a titanium submarine. This is a steel project. Just oversized in addition.
      1. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
        Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 25 January 2021 14: 31
        +2
        Read the article carefully. Shark body combined. Power set made of titanium, body made of steel.
        1. alex5450 Offline alex5450
          alex5450 (Alex L) 25 January 2021 21: 44
          -3
          If you read the article carefully, we are talking about "durable titanium cases". This is not a power pack at all - these are the rugged inner cases. But this is not true - the strong hulls of the 941th project are steel. Just like the lightweight body.
          1. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
            Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 26 January 2021 11: 55
            +2
            The MiG-25 is also steel, but some of the elements are made of titanium. It's the same on Sharks. Cutting submarines to the delight of the Yankees do not see the point. They don't cut their own
            1. alex5450 Offline alex5450
              alex5450 (Alex L) 26 January 2021 15: 48
              -2
              "Part" is a fraction of the percentage that can be neglected.
              Where are the Yankees' old submarines going? In my opinion, they cut into metal.
              1. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
                Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 26 January 2021 17: 30
                +1
                The Yankees do not cut anything, at least nothing that can be compared in age with the Sharks. The Yankees either repair their nuclear submarines and use them for their intended purpose, or convert them into cruise missile carriers.
                1. alex5450 Offline alex5450
                  alex5450 (Alex L) 26 January 2021 21: 55
                  -3
                  The American navy has always been in service for longer. Our 20-year-old units were often scrapped.
                  And this is not only in the fleet - remember, for example, the B-52 or Minuteman-3.

                  The pledged resource, continuous operation, timely upgrades and initially high characteristics allow to extend the active service life.
                  But this has little to do with the remnants of 941 projects.

                  PS "remodel" - are you talking about those 4 "Ohio"? )
                  1. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
                    Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 27 January 2021 20: 51
                    +2
                    The Yankees have big problems with the B-52, they live only due to technical cannibalism, with the Minutemans things are no better. On the other hand, our Tu-95s were also designed under Stalin. This is me about the US nuclear submarines built in the 80s of the last century, they are there not a few and everything is in service, except for those written off due to accidents and fires
                    1. alex5450 Offline alex5450
                      alex5450 (Alex L) 28 January 2021 16: 44
                      -3
                      This is all lyrics - the B-52 fleet shows high combat readiness, is actively used. Minutemans are regularly launched (though they are deeply modernized with replacement engines). Tu-95 is a relatively new aircraft and the one that flies was designed already under Brezhnev.

                      The reasons why they have submarines there (and not only) served and serve longer, I wrote above.
                      1. stepet Offline stepet
                        stepet 28 January 2021 19: 40
                        -4
                        Quote: alex5450
                        the B-52 fleet shows high combat readiness and is actively used. Minutemen regularly run

                        It’s a strange habit of comparing American weapons with Russian ones.
                        Is it okay that these are so different countries that they need different weapons?
                        These countries have different functions in the world.
                      2. alex5450 Offline alex5450
                        alex5450 (Alex L) 28 January 2021 19: 43
                        -2
                        I'm not the first to start comparing us and the Americans here.
                      3. stepet Offline stepet
                        stepet 28 January 2021 20: 00
                        -5
                        Quote: alex5450
                        I'm not the first to start comparing us and the Americans here.

                        Possible.
                        But the idea is flawed in itself.
                        Russia, of course, is not Pakistan.
                        But she is not close to India either.
                        1 United States 3472.19% 29.392%
                        2 China 2090.93% 17.700%
                        5 United Kingdom 469.81% 3.977%
                        6 France 449.77% 3.807%
                        7 India 413.22% 3.498%
                        18 Russia 100.00% 0.847%
                        49 Pakistan 15.22% 0.129%
                        - World - 100.0%
                        If anything, the last figure is the share in the wealth of the whole world.
                      4. alex5450 Offline alex5450
                        alex5450 (Alex L) 28 January 2021 22: 03
                        -2
                        On the other hand, there is old stock and enthusiasm. This is not a quick drink.
                      5. stepet Offline stepet
                        stepet 29 January 2021 12: 06
                        -3
                        Quote: alex5450
                        On the other hand, there is old stock and enthusiasm. This is not a quick drink.

                        Yes Yes.
                        Kursk was urokhan precisely because of the desire to use old reserves.
                        With the help of the embodiment of such a desire.
                      6. alex5450 Offline alex5450
                        alex5450 (Alex L) 29 January 2021 15: 44
                        -1
                        Was the Kursk old or its torpedo? Not at all.
                      7. stepet Offline stepet
                        stepet 29 January 2021 17: 35
                        -4
                        Quote: alex5450
                        Kursk "was it old or its torpedo? Not at all.

                        The torpedo was old.
                        And in general, it was not his regular torpedo.
                        But there was not only one torpedo that caused a disaster of this magnitude. But it began with a torpedo.
          2. Restless Sagittarius (Vladimir) 28 January 2021 21: 42
            +2
            There are no replacement engines for the B-52, all the plans remained just plans. And the Tu-95 under Brezhnev was modernized, and it was designed under Stalin
          3. alex5450 Offline alex5450
            alex5450 (Alex L) 28 January 2021 22: 05
            -4
            Well, the next plans were as they were. In the meantime, they fly well with the old ones.
            Well, if you consider that they have upgraded to Tu-142 with a different fuselage ... However, the production is fresh. And the Yankees are old. This is primary here.
  • Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 18 January 2021 13: 27
    +2
    Turning Dmitry Donskoy into a carrier of 200 Calibers is a bad idea.
    It is very difficult and expensive to create a latent threat.
    Exceptional sizes can be used to transport fuel and cargo to supply Antarctic and other stations, for example, but you need to estimate a debit-credit.
    Probably, it can also be used as floating batteries, as suggested by Vladimir Tuzakov. New ones are more expensive to build, but these can be on alert in coastal areas and possibly in a submerged state.
  • steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 18 January 2021 14: 54
    -2
    the covers of their missile silos were cut down at the request of the same Americans.

    And after that, someone here on the site thinks that no one controls Putin?

    for the cost of modernizing one Dmitry Donskoy, two brand new Boreas can be built at once.

    This was the starting point. If the "Borei" is built, then of course it's not worth it. But are there problems with the Boreas too? Apparently they are waiting for the Americans to approve the construction?
    1. Denis Kozlov Offline Denis Kozlov
      Denis Kozlov (Denis Kozlov) 24 January 2021 19: 50
      0
      Exactly so, here I am running you with nibiru, do you feel? And the author's delirium on this topic can be safely carried to the TV channel 3, there they love mysticism and all sorts of UFOs.
  • Nikita Filatov Offline Nikita Filatov
    Nikita Filatov (Nikita Filatov) 18 January 2021 16: 43
    -1
    To test the idea of ​​an underwater gas tanker on it.
    1. alex5450 Offline alex5450
      alex5450 (Alex L) 22 January 2021 21: 22
      -2
      Who will pay for the useless banquet?
  • bobba94 Offline bobba94
    bobba94 (Vladimir) 18 January 2021 17: 53
    -1
    To the aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" add the nuclear submarine "Dmitry Donskoy", and then see what happens. By the way, the cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" and the nuclear submarine "Dmitry Donskoy" are almost the same age.
  • Afinogen Offline Afinogen
    Afinogen (Afinogen) 18 January 2021 18: 08
    +9
    In principle, for any option, just do not cut it for scrap. As a last resort, make a museum out of it. Put it (like Aurora) in St. Petersburg near the embankment. It's just that crowds of people will come (tourist storm) to look and climb inside the largest submarine built on planet Earth. Personally, I will come to see if there is such a museum.
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 19 January 2021 08: 16
      +2
      Quote: Athenogen
      In principle, for any option, just do not cut it for scrap. As a last resort, make a museum out of it. Put it (like Aurora) in St. Petersburg near the embankment.

      A good idea.
  • Alexander K_2 Offline Alexander K_2
    Alexander K_2 (Alexander K) 18 January 2021 18: 31
    -8
    It would be a good idea to collect on board the remaining Akula 90% of the authorities holding the Russian Federation, all specialists from military Internet sites and flood the NSR with a podold, which Akula could not pierce with her strong hull
    1. Denis Kozlov Offline Denis Kozlov
      Denis Kozlov (Denis Kozlov) 24 January 2021 19: 48
      0
      We'll send you first, though not in a boat, but in concrete boots. There will be laughter)
      1. Alexander K_2 Offline Alexander K_2
        Alexander K_2 (Alexander K) 24 January 2021 19: 54
        0
        I think all the seats have already been allocated, but in the Russian Navy, besides boats, there are floating docks, "unparalleled" aircraft, tanks, torpedoes, missiles. But as I see, there are enough passengers!
  • gorenina91 Online gorenina91
    gorenina91 (Irina) 18 January 2021 18: 47
    -5
    Why the transformation of "Dmitry Donskoy" into a carrier of 200 "Caliber" is a bad idea

    - Well, then sell them to China ... - And China will quickly find a use for them ... - China just pours artificial islands in the seas; and will attach these powerful submarines to these islands ...
    - And in general ... - China can easily build the Great Wall of China from all decommissioned Soviet and Russian submarines (which also has such colossal firepower) ... - But not in the "Mongolian steppes"; but in the sea ... - So the Chinese will arrange a "naval blockade" for the Japanese and Americans ...
    1. alex5450 Offline alex5450
      alex5450 (Alex L) 22 January 2021 21: 23
      -2
      They are nuclear. With them, reactors still need to be put somewhere before turning them into parks and islands.
  • lahudra Offline lahudra
    lahudra (Nikolay Kondrashkin) 18 January 2021 20: 34
    -2
    Quote: bobba94
    To the aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" add the nuclear submarine "Dmitry Donskoy", and then see what happens.

    A good idea. Welding Akula to Admiral Kuznetsov and making a hostel on the water in St. Petersburg.
  • lahudra Offline lahudra
    lahudra (Nikolay Kondrashkin) 18 January 2021 21: 06
    -2
    Quote: Athenogen
    In principle, for any option, just do not cut it for scrap. As a last resort, make a museum out of it. Put it (like Aurora) in St. Petersburg near the embankment. It's just that crowds of people will come (tourist storm) to look and climb inside the largest submarine built on planet Earth. Personally, I'll come to see.

    Moscow is richer than St. Petersburg, but the submarine at the River Station has not been brought to mind. She stands as an orphan, now you can walk to her from Tushino on the ice. Come take a look.
  • Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 18 January 2021 23: 34
    0
    On the one hand - "High-ranking Russian military", without names and surnames for some reason, FOR.
    On the other hand, "military experts", also without names and surnames, on the contrary.

    In the comments, "High-ranking Russian military" for some reason turned out to be "experts" ...
    Maybe the State Department tried to confuse everyone?
    Or subconsciously "experts" guess where hands grow from marine repairmen-builders-effective managers?
  • Alexander Marat Offline Alexander Marat
    Alexander Marat (Alexander Marat) 19 January 2021 14: 24
    0
    Author, where did you see the active construction of "Boreyev" and "Yasinya"? Compare how many were according to plan and how many were built by the end of 2020.
  • Denis Kozlov Offline Denis Kozlov
    Denis Kozlov (Denis Kozlov) 24 January 2021 19: 45
    +1
    It is of course sad that such huge submarine battleships are a thing of the past, but one should not cling to them. Time dictates different rules for the submarine fleet, it is necessary to create nuclear submarines with the possibility of minimum maintenance, small sizes and they should be everywhere. The construction or modernization of 941 projects, even one, is not like 2 Boreas, but all 4. And I don't really understand why 200 missiles are needed? the standard group of the us navy is no more than 15 ships including an aircraft carrier, for which, excuse me, you need 200 missiles? The same Zircon cannot be shot down, which means that a surface target will be hit with a probability of 100%. So I can agree with the author, it is simply unprofitable to convert 941 into a cruise missile carrier.
  • stepet Offline stepet
    stepet 27 January 2021 12: 04
    -6
    Project 941 "Akula" has no analogues, these are the world's largest "nine-story" submarines,

    That's the trouble. The huge size of the boat is its HUGE minus.

    To date, 3 "Sharks" have already been disposed of with active financial "assistance" from the United States and Canada. Arkhangelsk and Severstal are in the queue for disposal, their missile silo covers have been cut down at the request of the same Americans.

    Actually, there is a START treaty. There it is clearly defined what and how much each side can have at sea.
    Everything that is superfluous is rendered inoperable until disposal.

    Today "Boreis" are actively under construction, and "Bulava" is put into service.

    Alas, nothing better than the wretched Boreyev and Bulava cannot be created. AND WILL NOT BE SUCCESSFUL.
    Chinese boats of project 094A Jin are already better than Boreev (094 Jin are equivalent). Boats 096 Teng are on the way. And even talking about the boats of the West is inconvenient.
    Mace, this is also not a mace, but a pin. Something reminiscent of the ancient Trident-1 arr. 1979 year

    High-ranking Russian military officials point out that due to the submarine's exceptional size, it can be converted into a carrier of cruise missiles "Caliber", "Onyx" and hypersonic "Zircons", which can be combined with up to 200 units. Say, in this way we will create in the oceans a great latent threat to the American fleet and the United States itself.

    This is just nonsense.