Sineva (R-29RMU) SLBM

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.

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.

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

I believe it was on Zvezda tv.

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.