Project 955: Borei class SSBN

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:It is normal for the real specifications of weapon systems, including their dimensions, to be different from their published values. That is a rule, actually.

Morpheus, in light of your comment I wanted to know that is it true that most Russian/Western torpedoes at least till the 50s had to run straight in the absence of guidance or homing?

This also increase the chances of "fratricide" right? I read somewhere that during WW2 a number of Nazi U-Boats fell victim to their own torpedoes that they had fired.

jhelb wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:It is normal for the real specifications of weapon systems, including their dimensions, to be different from their published values. That is a rule, actually.

Morpheus, in light of your comment I wanted to know that is it true that most Russian/Western torpedoes at least till the 50s had to run straight  in the absence of guidance or homing?

This also increase the chances of "fratricide" right? I read somewhere that during WW2 a number of Nazi U-Boats fell victim to their own torpedoes that they had fired.

I assume when a guided/homing torpedo loses its target, one of several options is for it to be programmed to run directly to the targets last "projected" position.

I have not seen any reliable data regarding torpedoes hitting the vessels that have fired them. Do you have any reliable information regarding these kind of situations?

Nice

Second Borei-class nuclear sub goes into service with Russian Navy — source

Even straight running torpedoes don't actually run straight... US torpedo tubes are in the middle of the vessel angled slightly outwards with the sonar array taking up the entire nose, which means even firing torpedoes at a target directly in front of a US sub the torpedo would have to travel in a curve to hit it.

The Stingray was a US sub lost with all hands with very little information as to what happened... the leading theory was that a torpedo went live... standard procedure is to jettison such a weapon as it is unsafe and it is believed the torpedo ran on a great curve and came around and hit and sunk the sub.

The sonar sensor on a torpedo is not as sensitive as the sensor in a sub so often even guided torpedoes would run for a period before attempting to detect the target and home in on it... running on a wide curve it is all together possible a homing torpedo could turn 180 degrees and get a lock on the launch vessel.

Viktor wrote:Nice  

Second Borei-class nuclear sub goes into service with Russian Navy — source

Interestingly, TASS are also quoting the length of a Borei as 170m. TASS journos using Wikipedia?.... pls say it isn't so....

Unconfirmed information ,According to wikipedia. English version. 2 new Borei Submarine have been added in the total plan.. So that is 8 + 2 = 10 Borei Submarines .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borei-class_submarine#cite_note-paritet1-53

http://www.militaryparitet.com/teletype/data/ic_teletype/13815/


Will be nice if turn to be correct the sources .  

At the moment apparently Russia have 12 nuclear ballistic submarines in service and US navy 18 ohio class.

nice chart of Russian navy entire submarine fleet in active submarines.. including
the 2 borei and 1 yasen in service. looking good..

http://defendingrussia.ru/upload/images/ckeditor/5501a7a9bd289.jpg

With 10 Borei submarines..and 5 Yasen class for 2020 to 2025.. and diesel electric subs..  and other overhauls here and there.. it will be a very decent projection of submarine power. This is not mentioning of course the surface warship fleet.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
I have not seen any reliable data regarding torpedoes hitting the vessels that have fired them. Do you have any reliable information regarding these kind of situations?

There were a number of instances of US and German torpedoes hitting the submarine that fired them. Of course the US & Germany did not disclose the full information.

Be that as it may be here is a list of "circular runs" of torpedos

http://www.subsowespac.org/the-patrol-zone/circular-torpedo-runs.shtml

10 new nuclear reactors ordered for Borei and Yassen class

Regional enterprises will supply 10 reactor units for "Boreas" and "Ash"

Today, you do not stop with good news

cheesfactory wrote:Today, you do not stop with good news  

Im on yarly vacation for a few days so I have time now to scan the net for news.

Viktor wrote:10 new nuclear reactors ordered for Borei and Yassen class  

Regional enterprises will supply 10 reactor units for "Boreas" and "Ash"

This is good news Viktor. Just one question. Will Borei & Yassen use the same nuclear reactor?

jhelb wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
I have not seen any reliable data regarding torpedoes hitting the vessels that have fired them. Do you have any reliable information regarding these kind of situations?

There were a number of instances of US and German torpedoes hitting the submarine that fired them. Of course the US & Germany did not disclose the full information.

Be that as it may be here is a list of "circular runs" of torpedos

http://www.subsowespac.org/the-patrol-zone/circular-torpedo-runs.shtml

Thanks, jhelb. I'll go through the document.

This is the first time a nuclear strategic asset(borei) will outnumber the tactical one(yasen), hence less escorts than the escorted. If this happens the russian boomer fleet will become more vulnerable and reduce the conventional attack capability.

A doomsday weapon SSBN is far less versatile and useful than an SSGN therefore having more boreis is a complete waste.

Actually a strategic weapon is a deterrent... if you don't have that theatre weapons become meaningless.

They can always make more SSGNs later but the priority is to ensure MAD... having 7 or 8 Yasens wont effect MAD.

GarryB wrote:Actually a strategic weapon is a deterrent... if you don't have that theatre weapons become meaningless.

They can always make more SSGNs later but the priority is to ensure MAD... having 7 or 8 Yasens wont effect MAD.

Given the anemic working shipyard capacity and building rate "later" will be too late.

MAD has already been achieved a long time ago. The US didn't go nuclear on russia in the 90s when it was practically a sitting duck and their's even less a chance now. Now the US is somewhere between farting and outright shitting in it's pants just by the existance of the Topol-M, Yars, and soon Sarmat. By the time all 8 boreis come out the americans will be constantly wearing diapers.

The SSBN fleet isn't russia's primary tool in it's triad anyway, so suddenly spending too much on it is gonna be useless. SSBNs are overrated anyway. They don't have an advantage over land based mobile ICBMs which have equal stealth and are much cheaper to boot, and neither have the geopolitical deterrence factor and muscle flexing versatility of strategic bombers. That is why IMHO Russia focusing on land based ICBMs and bombers is enough.

The only reason the US relies so much on SSBNs is because it's ICBM and nuclear bomber fleet are obsolete aging immobile cold war dinosaurs. Russia doesn't have this problem therefore as I said spending massive amounts on a large SSBN fleet is superfluous.  

Also having more MAD weapons is completely useless at countering NGO regime change, the principal threat Russia should be focusing on countering.

Meanwhile having more yasens will increase massively Russia's carrier killing capability, and if the US's carriers are sunk it's already lost the war. That way if the need arises Russia can defeat NATO without causing a nuclear holocaust.  Yasen's are also far less vulnerable to enemy subs and  can do far more types of missions(special force extraction, minelaying, etc.).

SSBN's are an insurance policy being the hardest to detect.

Russian ones don't need to sail far to launch their missiles

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Meanwhile having more yasens will increase massively Russia's carrier killing capability, and if the US's carriers are sunk it's already lost the war. That way if the need arises Russia can defeat NATO without causing a nuclear holocaust.  Yasen's are also far less vulnerable to enemy subs and  can do far more types of missions(special force extraction, minelaying, etc.).

you just need better standoff weapons and surveillance systems to defeat carriers. updated rorsats and scramjet anti-ship missiles are just that and they are working on them atm. an oscar 2 should be plenty for such a role too- not to mention probably most suited, since it has the greatest missile capacity apart from SSBNs.

Cyberspec wrote:SSBN's are an insurance policy being the hardest to detect.

Russian ones don't need to sail far to launch their missiles

Russia is already insured for decades. Spending billions on a few more SSBNs won't change shit on the political decisions of the west. If only the funds allocated to the next 3 boreis were given to Rusnano and Roscosmos...

But alas, the russian leadership seams to have become infected with the "bomber gap" mental desease, the same which made americans waste billions of $$$ to counter an mythical threat of an imminent soviet nuclear bomber attack, but this time it involves the ABM shield(legitimate concern) and supposed US SSBN imminent first strike(baloney)...

Actually I would say the opposite... 8 Boreis were in the budget and while they are not cheap they will allow the retirement of rather less capable SSBNs.

GarryB wrote:Actually I would say the opposite... 8 Boreis were in the budget and while they are not cheap they will allow the retirement of rather less capable SSBNs.

What would've it been the problem with modernising the akulas to fire bulavas which would be much cheaper than building from scratch?

What would've it been the problem with modernising the akulas to fire bulavas which would be much cheaper than building from scratch?

Akulas carry 20 missiles as standard... even with just 5 warheads per missile that is 100 warheads per vessel... with the new start treaty limiting both sides to 1,200 warheads each that means 400 warheads per service... why have three salvagable old Akulas with 300 missiles and perhaps a single Delta IV class with 16 missiles with 8 warheads makes it 428 warheads for four subs... of two very different types that are old and are getting more expensive to maintian.

It makes rather more sense to spread your missiles across 8 boats... it means the west has to find and destroy more subs before they can launch their missiles.

what does that have to do with what I've said?

Having an SSBN fleet of new build Boreis will be cheaper to operate and man because they will all be very much alike... unlike a mixed fleet of Delta IVs Delta IIIs, and a couple of Boreis.

Nice

Commander of the Russian Navy: construction of nuclear submarines "Northwind" and will continue after 2020