Sineva (R-29RMU) SLBM

Why idiotic?

Liquid fuelled engines are more powerful than solid fuelled engines and solid rocket fuel is very very expensive. Both can be stored for the life time of the weapon, so in actual fact solid fuelled rockets don't have much in the way of advantages.

The liquid fuelled rockets can be throttled up or down when needed and are therefore likely to be rather more efficient and flexible than solid fuelled rockets which burn at a fixed rate for a determined length of time that can't be changed... once started they don't stop till they are out of fuel...

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.

Not really... they will have targets they need to reach and requirements that didn't exist when Bulava was developed... being able to launch a missile at a target going the other way around the planet might be a new requirement for example or being able to carry multiple glider warheads to defeat ABM systems which were not possible options when the Bulava was being developed because of START II and the ABM Treaty... missiles entering earth orbit are considered fractional orbital bombardment systems (like SS-9), but now with nothing replacing new START all bets are off...

GarryB wrote:Why idiotic?

Liquid fuelled engines are more powerful than solid fuelled engines and solid rocket fuel is very very expensive. Both can be stored for the life time of the weapon, so in actual fact solid fuelled rockets don't have much in the way of advantages.

The liquid fuelled rockets can be throttled up or down when needed and are therefore likely to be rather more efficient and flexible than solid fuelled rockets which burn at a fixed rate for a determined length of time that can't be changed... once started they don't stop till they are out of fuel...

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.

Not really... they will have targets they need to reach and requirements that didn't exist when Bulava was developed... being able to launch a missile at a target going the other way around the planet might be a new requirement for example or being able to carry multiple glider warheads to defeat ABM systems which were not possible options when the Bulava was being developed because of START II and the ABM Treaty... missiles entering earth orbit are considered fractional orbital bombardment systems (like SS-9), but now with nothing replacing new START all bets are off...

Greater range, throw weight and greater number of deployed missiles are invariant advantages. Arguing they have no meaning is like
saying that sticks and stones are good enough in the face of Maxim guns.

It is ironic that the country that fields the most powerful land based ICBM can't even match the number of SLBMs deployed by the USA
and has a weaker variant. The deciders who chose 16 tubes instead of 20 for Russian strategic nuclear submarines must have been
subconsciously sabotaging Russian interests at the very least. Putting more tubes in a large submarine is almost a no brainer.
But as it stands, ignoring the differences in SLBMs, every 10 Ohio subs are worth 15 Russian subs of the same category. Russia's
strategic nuclear submarine fleet numbers are not so large as to justify such a large gap.

Inform the Americans that they too are sabotaging themselves, Columbia has 16 tubes.

Greater range, throw weight and greater number of deployed missiles are invariant advantages. Arguing they have no meaning is like
saying that sticks and stones are good enough in the face of Maxim guns.

Liquid fuelled rocket engines are more powerful, which makes better range, better throw weight, and increased warhead payloads easier to achieve.

I am not saying such things don't have meaning, what I am saying is that Bulava was design to do a job... has that job changed?

Russian ports have not moved further away from their targets in the US, so I suspect it is more likely they want more warheads, or different glider warheads, or perhaps... as I said... for their warheads to head in the opposite direction and instead of coming at the US over the north pole, to come over the south pole by entering earth orbit and then deorbiting... something that was previously not allowed because of the ABM treaty that covered anti satellite weapons and anti ballistic missiles and of course fractional orbital bombardment systems... but that treaty was ripped up by the US...

It is ironic that the country that fields the most powerful land based ICBM can't even match the number of SLBMs deployed by the USA
and has a weaker variant.

Not ironic at all... once the silos are built they are much easier to defend and much cheaper to operate than any sub, and together with mobile truck based systems and perhaps rail mounted systems they are just as elusive... and require very little launch warning to get their missiles in the air.

The deciders who chose 16 tubes instead of 20 for Russian strategic nuclear submarines must have been
subconsciously sabotaging Russian interests at the very least. Putting more tubes in a large submarine is almost a no brainer.

Right now, you are correct, but when these vessels were designed there was such a thing as START II in place, and then New START which limited each side to 1,550 warheads... having 20 missiles in each sub just means you are allowed fewer subs... how is that a good thing?

Having really really big subs is not a great idea... the Akula SSBNs were unique and their ability to surface through 3m of ice and their high freeboard meaning when surfaced there wasn't really much hanging under the ice for a torpedo to hit... for most ice more than 3/4s is under water with bits hanging down making torpedo shots even less effective over any distance.

But Akulas are expensive and huge... Borei is much smaller and just as deadly... with START II gone they could adapt the Bulava to carry enormous numbers of warheads in a fractional orbital bombardment flight profile that could attack the US from any direction...

But as it stands, ignoring the differences in SLBMs, every 10 Ohio subs are worth 15 Russian subs of the same category. Russia's
strategic nuclear submarine fleet numbers are not so large as to justify such a large gap.

SLBMs are important and effective, but it is cheaper to make lots of IRBMs to hit Europe and Israel and Japan, and use ICBMs on trucks and trains for the US...

Inform the Americans that they too are sabotaging themselves, Columbia has 16 tubes.

When playing hide and seek with guns it makes more sense to have more players carrying less ammo than one player carrying all the ammo... smaller and lighter is easier to hide and cheaper to operate.

Now that there are no strategic arms agreements going to be working after 2021 then you could build some very interesting subs... imagine a single warhead scramjet missile that gets itself into orbit the size of a cruise missile with 200 on each sub...

x_54_u43 wrote:Inform the Americans that they too are sabotaging themselves, Columbia has 16 tubes.

Get informed yourself first. The Ohio class has 24 and there are 14 SSBN versions. Columbia is some future boat that is supposed
to have 16 tubes with improved Trident missiles. Until they build them don't piss around claiming that 16 is cast in stone. Also,
sunshine, the Ohio's are going to be around for a while which renders your whole point totally moot.

Russia has 3 active Borei SSBNs with 10 total planned and 4 under construction. It also has 6 active Delta IV with 16 missile tubes
each. Clearly the US will have SLBM missile superiority for many years to come.

The point about having more submarines with less eggs in their baskets would make sense if Russia would deploy 50% to 100% more of them
than the yanquis. As it stands the yanquis can transition their Ohio's to the alleged 16 tube Columbia's while still dominating Russia
and satisfying the less eggs criterion.

It is ironic that the country that fields the most powerful land based ICBM can't even match the number of SLBMs deployed by the USA
and has a weaker variant.  The deciders who chose 16 tubes instead of 20 for Russian strategic nuclear submarines must have been
subconsciously sabotaging Russian interests at the very least.   Putting more tubes in a large submarine is almost a no brainer.  
But as it stands, ignoring the differences in SLBMs, every 10 Ohio subs are worth 15 Russian subs of the same category.  Russia's
strategic nuclear submarine fleet numbers are not so large as to justify such a large gap.  

Atleast give them credit for wanting to field scramjet missiles for their submarines(possibly carry nuclear warheads) those are impossible to track on radars while SLBMs on the other hand are a little more easier to deal with according to theory. To me it is pointless wanting to field SLBMs only if they have accomplished the goal they needed for the Zircon. I assure you that Russia with A-235, new Voronezh ground radars, Mobile S-500s, ELIK satellites with possible constellation plans, Tundra satellites, photonic integrated circuit production with radar products later, etc will have a way easier time to intercept SLBMs than the U.S. with GMD, an/spy-6 with SM-6 newer variants, new infrared satellites at LEO(which is a retarded idea to get easily intercepted by air defenses and aircrafts with anti-sat capabilities) would against Zircon missiles which can lurk anywhere at sea closer to the U.S. coasts.

SLBMs suck but that's the option for now until the Zircons become operational with their final stats from testing.

Russia has 3 active Borei SSBNs with 10 total planned and 4 under construction. It also has 6 active Delta IV with 16 missile tubes
each. Clearly the US will have SLBM missile superiority for many years to come.

The nuclear triad is not an even and equal thing... AFAIK Russia has never had more SSBNs than land based ICBMs, while the US with two large oceans either side of it has favoured the mobility of having its deterrent in boomers... it is no big deal really.

Russia is never going to spend anything like what the US spends on "defence" so trying to beat them in numbers with something with no practical value except during WWIII makes no sense at all... there is no reward for having the most Boomers and certainly no reward for having the most SLBMs.

A Borei is a magnificent example of technology, but why would you want 20 or 30... except for WWIII they are useless and are expensive.

Vastly better to have 10 of them, which will give them 160 missiles each with 6 warheads... that is 960 warheads. Why do you think having 24 missiles in each boat improve things? That would mean 1440 warheads... so until 2021 you can't have any bombers or ICBMs... but even afterwards what would they do with all these subs and missiles?

If you instead have a moderate number of SSBNs and that way you can have more strategic bombers... that can be used in a conventional role to support operations around the world, with cruise missiles that can be fitted with conventional warheads and actually used in situations other than WWIII.... or indeed ICBMs that at the end of their lives can be used to launch satellites...

We are talking value for money... something Americans don't understand of course...

The point about having more submarines with less eggs in their baskets would make sense if Russia would deploy 50% to 100% more of them
than the yanquis. As it stands the yanquis can transition their Ohio's to the alleged 16 tube Columbia's while still dominating Russia
and satisfying the less eggs criterion.

What America does is not Russias problem, but eventually someone in the White house will want a strategic arms treaty of some sort with Russia... I am sure American wont care about scrapping some of their Ohios... some of them are quite old... I don't think Russians will be happy about scrapping Boreis though considering they will all still be pretty new.

SLBMs suck but that's the option for now until the Zircons become operational with their final stats from testing.

In theory SLBMs are shorter ranged and slower ballistic weapons... the top tier models of S-400 with the ability to intercept 4.8km/s targets should be able to engage SLBMs.... which means ICBMs can be engaged with S-500 only but SLBMs by S-500 and S-400 which increases the number of air defence groups in Russian territory can engage them... in war nothing is safe from everything... the point is to minimise the number of threats that can defeat you... so while so called western experts were deriding BTR-60/70 and 80 vehicles because of their weak armour, equivalent western units moved around the battlefield in duece and a half trucks with no turret mounted weapons and no protection from small arms fire at all. The fact that they moved to Strykers suggests they are happy to eat crow but they wont admit they were wrong...

Launch of the Sineva intercontinental ballistic missile

11/24/2022
RIA News

Missiles "Sineva" and "Liner" will be in service with nuclear submarines of the Russian Navy until 2030

Ballistic missiles "Sineva" and "Liner" will be in service with nuclear submarines of the Russian Navy until 2030

MOSCOW, November 23 - RIA Novosti. Sea-based ballistic missiles "Sineva" and "Layner" will be in service with strategic nuclear submarines (NPS) of the Russian Navy until 2030, said Vladimir Degtyar, director general of the State Missile Center (GRC) named after Makeev, the developer and manufacturer of these missiles.

These liquid-fuel missiles are armed with third-generation strategic submarines of project 667 (BDRM). New fourth-generation Borey-class strategic nuclear-powered ships (Project 955) are armed with the Bulava solid-propellant missile. The range of destruction of "Liner" - up to 11 thousand kilometers, "Bulava/Mace" - up to 9 thousand.

"Missiles" Sineva "and" Liner "in the second decade of our century provided a parry of the problems of strategic deterrence of the "probable enemy" during periods of aggravation of the international situation. Today they form the basis of the marine component of the nuclear triad of Russia and currently provide the possibility of the existence of the existing North-Western grouping submarines until 2026-2030," Degtyar said in an interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

According to him, this gives time for research and development of a promising sea-based missile system.

Degtyar also stressed that, unlike Sineva, Liner missiles can be equipped with various types of payloads. In modern conditions, equipping a missile with countermeasures increases the efficiency of its use.

"The combat stage of the missile and countermeasures, developed on the basis of the adaptive-modular principle, provide the ability to respond flexibly to changes in the missile defense system by replacing the payload," said the director of the Makeev State Research Center.

https://vpk.name/news/656870_rakety_sineva_i_lainer_budut_na_vooruzhenii_apl_vmf_rossii_do_2030_goda.html

Arrow wrote:R-29R warhead.

Holy shit...

Warhead RVs openly displayed???? What was the source of this pic?

Podlodka77 wrote:Missiles "Sineva" and "Liner" will be in service with nuclear submarines of the Russian Navy until 2030

I wonder what Russia will do with the Layner & Sineva missiles when the last Proj 667/Delta-IV is finally retired?

I'd consider preserving them and developing a prototype mobile ground launcher to demonstrate feasibility of repurposing as a land mobile ICBM (its smaller and lighter than the Yars/Topol-M, so the existing TELs would be suitable). Keep it in the back pocket in case Russia needs to rapidly boost the strategic deterrent.

Sarmat uses hypergolics, so Russia will be retaining its proficiences and production capacity of military-use storeable propellents. This means that preserving the Layner/Sineva for contingencies won't require any extra expenditure to maintain an otherwise unused fuelling infrastructure.

8x subs use these missiles - 1x Delta-III (Ryazan) and the 7x Delta-IVs.  Thats 128 missiles in active service, and probably a similar number in storage.  Anyone has any authorative numbers?

Edit: correction - only 6x 667BDRM were fitted with Sineva/Layner. Podmoskovye was converted for minisub mothership.

I believe it was on Zvezda tv.

Actually I would be thinking new scramjet powered missiles might start to replace ballistic weapons... the two stage GROM II is supposed to be a mach 12 plus 12K km range two stage air launched missile that is 11 metres long with the rear portion essentially being a Kh-32 body... perhaps modified to scramjet propulsion too to maximise range and fuel performance.

I would think wings and rocket speed scramjet powered air breathing missiles would reduce fuel weight by four fifths enabling much smaller lighter missiles to be used... missiles that fit in standard shipping containers could be loaded onto ships and trucks and trains and aircraft...

New post  Big_Gazza Today at 1:10 am

The Russians currently have 10 strategic submarines in active service, five 667 BDRM "Dolphin", three 955 "Borei" and two 955A "Borei-A" submarines. When "Suvorov" enters active service, the number rises to 11. Submarine K-84 "Ekaterinburg" (667 BDRM) is decommissioned, while K-44 "Ryazan" (667 BDR) is operational but no longer for strategic purposes.

4 more "Borei-A" submarines are under construction; Emperor Alexander III, Knayz , Knyaz Pozharskiy, Knyaz Potemkin, Dmitry Donskoy. And a contract was signed for the construction of two more 955A submarines. If that is the final number then we will have three 955 and nine 955A submarines.


As for Sineva and Liner, here is the translation of the interview with the general director and general constructor of AO GRC "Makeev" from 2 days ago.

"Rossiyskaya Gazeta" under the heading "General Designer Vladimir Degtyar: "Sarmat" launched into serial production", published an interview with the General Director and General Designer of JSC "State Rocket Center named after Academician V.P. Makeev" (JSC "GRTs Makeev", part of State Corporation "Roskomos") Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vladimir Degtyar.

Some time ago, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, under the symbolic heading "Liner was sent for Sineva," reported on two interrelated developments of your center for equipping Russia's strategic submarine forces. How did their fate develop and what are their prospects today?

Vladimir Degtyar: A feature of the development work on the Sineva and Liner topics was the implementation of the modernization potential laid down during the creation of the R-29RM base missile and the maximum use of the adaptive-modular properties of the D-9RM base missile system. As a result, the list of missile options used on one missile carrier in any combination has been expanded. Here it should also be noted the experimental design work "Station", which preceded the development work "Sineva" and "Liner" and ensured the implementation of adaptive-modular properties in terms of combat equipment.

Unlike Sineva, Liner missiles can be equipped with various types of payloads. In modern conditions, equipping a missile with countermeasures increases the efficiency of its use. The missile's combat stage and countermeasures, developed on the basis of the adaptive-modular principle, provide the ability to respond flexibly to changes in the missile defense system by replacing the payload.

Thus, the Sineva and Liner missiles in the second decade of our century ensured that the problems of strategic containment of a "potential enemy" were countered during periods of aggravation of the international situation. Today, they form the basis of the marine component of the Russian nuclear triad and currently ensure the existence of the current North-Western group of submarines until 2026-2030. This gives us time to conduct research and development of a promising sea-based missile system, which I have already mentioned.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4616990.html

I wonder what Russia will do with the Layner & Sineva missiles when the last Proj 667/Delta-IV is finally retired?

Put them on trains. 

Incredible shots of salvo launches from pier.