Sineva (R-29RMU) SLBM

George1 wrote:Ι have a question.

Suppose Delta IV class decommissioned from service in near future.
Can/will Liner SLBM be carried by Borei class submarines? Or a new SSBN must be designed?

Borei is designed around Bulava so no, they can't use Sineva

George1 wrote:Ι have a question.

Suppose Delta IV class decommissioned from service in near future.
Can/will Liner SLBM be carried by Borei class submarines? Or a new SSBN must be designed?

Borei should replace all SSBN. So bulava will be only SLBM and I don't think they designed them for other missile than bulava.

If a new SSBN is made then an new SLBM will be made too. Probably something with hypersonic manouevrable warheads.

Btw missiles have limit date so those deployed now will be destroyed and they will just stop the production.

Also, Sineva is liquid fuel missile so that gives them shorter shelf life

They will be retired alongside Deltas

Would be interesting for them to continue to make them and develop land based versions for use in arctic areas... some exceed 5,500km so they are ICBMs but with heavy payloads of decoys and jammers and lots of warheads the range could be reduced to IRBMS which will now be allowed and when based in the far north could reach much of the US...

They are already made after all.

so there is no need for Russian Navy to have both liquid and solid fuel SLBMs (I thought that was the point for keeping Sineva/Liner)

Sineva fired from Karelia SSBN during Grom-2019

Also, Sineva is liquid fuel missile so that gives them shorter shelf life

Actually liquid fuelled rockets can be kept with no fuel loaded indefinitely... when you need to use them... fuel them up with fresh fuel and they are ready to go.

Solid fuel rockets also have a shelf life... and the risk of them failing increases over time.

Liquid fuelled rockets can be handled empty... loaded into a sub and then fuelled up in place. The only accident I have heard of loading SLBMs into subs was with an Akula class with an SS-N-20 which is a solid fuelled missile. The exterior damage burned the outer tiles red and the sub got the local knick name red october...

so there is no need for Russian Navy to have both liquid and solid fuel SLBMs (I thought that was the point for keeping Sineva/Liner)

They have three working capable SLBMs... why would they not use them all while they have them?

Once they are in a position of replacing all the older model SSBNs with Boreis they can of course use them up as targets for ABM systems etc or add a stage and use them to launch small satellites... But they could also just as easily use them on trains or trucks as IRBMs now that the INF treaty is gone... put them in an An-124 or whatever replaces it for global reach missiles...

Correct me if I am wrong, but AFAIK liquid fuelled SLBMs are kept fully fuelled in their tubes as the Russians have long ago perfected the technologies for long-term storable hypergolics, both the material science/metallurgy and exotic hydraulic valves and fittings.

Perfectly correct.

There is no fuelling required, other than after a fresh missile is loaded at port.

To be honest I don't know, but I would say if they wanted to they could handle empty missiles and load them onto their subs in port and then while the sub is still in port pump the missiles fuel directly in to the missile from storage tanks in port, after which they would be sealed up and ready to leave port and perform their missions. The missiles would not need to be removed or de-fuelled for several decades.

It might be that they are fuelled up at the factory where they are made and handled rather carefully when loading them into subs. They wont put them in and take them out often. If in dry dock for some serious work the missiles will be removed but most of the time they will likely remain in place.

Supporting proof is that there isn't space in a SSBN for sufficient tankage to hold the combined propellent load of 16x missiles, and I'd argue that storing corrosive and toxic propellents within the pressure-bearing hull is a less safe practise than storing it in the missiles within the tubes.

There would be no benefit to storing the fuel and the missiles separately on a sub... very simply because if there is a way of containing the fuel for 16 or more missiles on a sub safely then that same technology could be used inside the missiles themselves and the fuel could be stored inside the missiles instead of external tanks in the sub. The obvious advantage would be the ability to launch at the push of a button instead of pressure refuelling the missiles before launch which could take 20 minutes or more.

Also consider the loss of K-219 caused by an explosion in a missile tube where propellents leaked and ignited. If missiles were kept unfuelled and propellents loaded prior to firing, then this accident would have been impossible.

Well actually I would say the opposite... if you have tanks filled with this rocket fuel and pipes so the fuel from these tanks can be pumped to each missile tube and into each missile then there are many more points of failure where potential leaks could occur.

I would however add that salt water is not actually that healthy for solid rocket fuel either...

Nothing surprises me when it comes to block-headed NATOstani fake-news and lies.

Sadly there is a lot of myth and stereotype still present... shame the Russian navy don't declare themselves the 124th gender... that might protect them from any criticism at all from the west...

Looks like one Sineva missile failed to launch and got stuck in tube during recent exercises, not good

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3811460.html

PapaDragon wrote:
Looks like one Sineva missile failed to launch and got stuck in tube during recent exercises, not good

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3811460.html

An emergency could occur due to the failure of some submarine systems through which the launch team passes, one of the interlocutors believes. The exact reasons to be found out by a special commission from representatives of the command of the Pacific Fleet, the General Staff of the Navy and the defense industry. ..

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Looks like one Sineva missile failed to launch and got stuck in tube during recent exercises, not good

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3811460.html

It's time to retire the last Kalmar from combat duty.

Or modernize it to carry Sineva like the other ones.  Give more life out of it.  Sineva has a high success rate.

Wonder though, why they didn't go with a solid fuel variant of it? I mean, the company involved in Sineva has so many years of experience in SLBM tech.

So it wasn't Sineva that choked but Vysota (SS-N-18)?

I assumed that Sineva is oldest one​ used by Navy

Mods could move this somewhere else then...

PapaDragon wrote:
Looks like one Sineva missile failed to launch and got stuck in tube during recent exercises, not good

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3811460.html

NATO propagandastream media is all over this story today. I hope an American nuke sub blows up some time this week, that would be a satisfying payback!

PhSt wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Looks like one Sineva missile failed to launch and got stuck in tube during recent exercises, not good

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3811460.html

NATO propagandastream media is all over this story today.  I hope an American nuke sub blows up some time this week, that would be a satisfying payback!

I am quite sure that sh*t happens in NATO. You just don't hear about. And I would take all the claimed details of this incident
with a massive grain of salt. No MSM anywhere has such close access to information. And we have a clear history of both Russian
and NATO MSM spreading lies and fake news about all things Russia.

Time to apply the boy who cried wolf filter.

Rather than retire anything they should investigate properly and then decide how to move forward.

A chronic problem might lead to extreme measures like withdrawing a missile type... I would say the volume and size of these SLBMs means plenty of room on board these vessels... so for example replacing 16 Sineva missiles would free up a lot of space that could be filled with new nuclear propelled unlimited range cruise missiles with a nice solid rocket booster to get them up and moving... they could be launched from anywhere and for each SLBM you could probably fit 3-5 missiles per original missile tube space.

As long as they don't enter service till after 2021 when the new start treaty expires then everything is fine.

GarryB wrote:Rather than retire anything they should investigate properly and then decide how to move forward.

A chronic problem might lead to extreme measures like withdrawing a missile type... I would say the volume and size of these SLBMs means plenty of room on board these vessels... so for example replacing 16 Sineva missiles would free up a lot of space that could be filled with new nuclear propelled unlimited range cruise missiles with a nice solid rocket booster to get them up and moving... they could be launched from anywhere and for each SLBM you could probably fit 3-5 missiles per original missile tube space.

As long as they don't enter service till after 2021 when the new start treaty expires then everything is fine.

It wasn't Sineva missile Garry.

Are people really that incapable of reading articles?

R-29 Vysota is the missile.

Speaking of people who can't read properly if you look back at what I said I mentioned Sineva as an EXAMPLE... using capitals here for emphasis in case you don't understand this time too.

I did not say the missile involved was Sineva.

I said the incident should be investigated and then action taken rather than just a knee jerk rush to replace all liquid fuelled ICBMs and SLBMs which are perfectly fine for the role they fill.

I then suggested an alternative armament for non Bulava equipped platforms if they so needed a replacement missile because as already established Bulava wont fit them.

GarryB wrote:Speaking of people who can't read properly if you look back at what I said I mentioned Sineva as an EXAMPLE... using capitals here for emphasis in case you don't understand this time too.

I did not say the missile involved was Sineva.

I said the incident should be investigated and then action taken rather than just a knee jerk rush to replace all liquid fuelled ICBMs and SLBMs which are perfectly fine for the role they fill.

I then suggested an alternative armament for non Bulava equipped platforms if they so needed a replacement missile because as already established Bulava wont fit them.

Since Sineva works fine and been tested countless of times, it's better to upgrade remaining vessels to use Sineva and get rid of those old 1970's models.

Sineva and Layner are very great missiles. Only though demand is in solid fuel due to not having to fill the missile to use or store liquid when not in use.

Since Sineva works fine and been tested countless of times, it's better to upgrade remaining vessels to use Sineva and get rid of those old 1970's models.

I totally agree... liquid propellants are still more powerful than solid fuels and both are enormous fire risks... being solid fuelled doesn't make it safe... SS-N-20s have been dropped during loading and it burst into flames just like a liquid propellent missile would, and in terms of the environment both spew out toxic fumes on launch, and huge nuclear fireballs when they hit so all round both are bad for the environment.

The liquid propellants they use are stable for decades... and I rather suspect solid fuel rockets don't age any better.

Sineva and Layner are very great missiles. Only though demand is in solid fuel due to not having to fill the missile to use or store liquid when not in use.

As far as I know these SLBMs are loaded with fuel in the factory and throughout their service lives are not defuelled... just like a solid fuelled model.

But these older SSBNs... Delta 3s and Delta 4s are not really quiet enough for front line use in WWIII... what I think would be a good use for them is to replace old missiles like the SS-N-18 with these unlimited range cruise missiles... which should be shorter than the SS-N-18s so you could reduce the profile of the subs which should make them smaller and lighter and quieter and faster... with a high level of automation the crew could be tiny with a large number of missiles with unlimited range that could be launched from anywhere.

From the western perspective you would need to chase them all over the world and all those conventionally powered ASW ships you saved money buying will now be in trouble... imagine a modified Delta III zipping around at 20knots all the time... not like they will run out of fuel... but those trying to chase them in conventional boats will burn through the fuel... even better when WWIII starts and it turns out they don't even have any missiles on board. Once a month for two or three weeks it could slow down and be quiet and sneaky and hard to find, and then back up to racing around...

Of course the real missiles could be located in the middle of Russia where the west can't touch them until they are launched and they could fly in any direction.

Later models of the nuclear powered cruise missile could use ramjet propulsion but because no combustion actually takes place it would be the equivalent of a scramjet with only heat and shape speed limits and working with mach 27 reentry vehicles and hypersonic scramjet powered missiles new materials and shapes will already be being developed anyway.

Rocket launch in Russia and a spiral climb to 80km altitude and then fly south at mach 10 and accelerating over the south pole to come up on the US from the south... releasing warheads over various targets it flys over... you could then command it to descend to low altitude and fly around at 50m altitude at mach 3 or mach 4.... where the shockwave would be lethal and do damage to things on the ground.... for the next few years or until it flys in to something.

IIRC Ryazan was overhauled recently (2016?) but she would be the last boat to carry the older R-29R.

She is the last Delta III in service as an SSBN at the moment... one D3 was repurposed as a support sub for mini subs... maybe it is time for them to do the same with the others they have. I remember they kept the Yankee class in service by converting them from SSBNs to SSNs, but that was an extreme measure because the nuclear power plants on the older model subs were not good.... the Hotel, Echo, and November subs had rather bad reactors... the Yankees were better but still not great because they were rushed.

They don't have an urgent need for new SSNs, but some sort of arsenal sub design might be interesting... they wouldn't need to be stealthy... just full of UKSK-M launch tubes and unlimited range at high speed with nuclear propulsion.

For new strategic boats will create a rocket with a liquid engine

...at sea, the construction of Project 955A strategic missile carriers and the development of a new ballistic missile for submarines (SLBM).

There are plans to upgrade the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces, the Vedomosti interlocutor is close to the agency: by 2027, 10 strategic Boreevs should be operational. The new SLBM mentioned in the presentation implies development at the State Rocket Center named after Makeeva (Miass) of a new rocket with a liquid engine, the corresponding development work has already been opened, he says. Strategic weapons expert Pavel Podvig believes that we can talk about continuing work on the R-29RMU-2 Sineva missile...

https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2019/12/18/819066-dlya-strategicheskih

Absolutely idiotic idea but I guess lobbying is alive and kicking in Russia as well

dino00 wrote:For new strategic boats will create a rocket with a liquid engine

...at sea, the construction of Project 955A strategic missile carriers and the development of a new ballistic missile for submarines (SLBM).

There are plans to upgrade the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces, the Vedomosti interlocutor is close to the agency: by 2027, 10 strategic Boreevs should be operational. The new SLBM mentioned in the presentation implies development at the State Rocket Center named after Makeeva (Miass) of a new rocket with a liquid engine, the corresponding development work has already been opened, he says. Strategic weapons expert Pavel Podvig believes that we can talk about continuing work on the R-29RMU-2 Sineva missile...

https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2019/12/18/819066-dlya-strategicheskih

They need to exceed the specs of the Trident II. The Bulava is smaller and the Russian nuclear SLBM subs do not have 24 tubes.