Project 955: Borei class SSBN

KiloGolf wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Arrow wrote:Only 16 SLBM, old reactor.

Its an improved serial build of the initial Norei batch, updated with tweaks. What did you expect?

It seems Russia is unable to produce well-armed SSBNs. 16 SLBMs is way too low, and that high number of torpedo tubes seems a bit useless. Also I'm not so sure about the procured numbers, way too low.

To put few more missile tube is cheap.

The missile itself is cheap as well.


However the START set a limit to the number of SSBNs ( indirectly ,by defining the max number of warheads).

The boreis with 16 tube can carry half of the warheads available under the start .

Big_Gazza wrote:

Arrow wrote:Only 16 SLBM, old reactor.

Its an improved serial build of the initial Norei batch, updated with tweaks. What did you expect?

Mainly cost saving measure.


How many torpedo tubes the Borei - 2 has?

Big_Gazza wrote:

Arrow wrote:Only 16 SLBM, old reactor.

Its an improved serial build of the initial Norei batch, updated with tweaks. What did you expect?

Then the build time shouldn'tve been so slow. We expected a fully version that was better in all combat qualities than the original 955.

Singular_Transform wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Arrow wrote:Only 16 SLBM, old reactor.

Its an improved serial build of the initial Norei batch, updated with tweaks. What did you expect?

It seems Russia is unable to produce well-armed SSBNs. 16 SLBMs is way too low, and that high number of torpedo tubes seems a bit useless. Also I'm not so sure about the procured numbers, way too low.

To put few more missile tube is cheap.

The missile itself is cheap as well.


However the START set a limit to the number of SSBNs ( indirectly ,by defining the max number of warheads).

The boreis with 16 tube can carry half of the warheads available under the start .

Nobody cares about START. And warhead distribution varies and it's always a matter of unloading stuff from boat to boat. Having a max of only 16 SLBMs to go can't change.

With 8 SSBNs only 2 can be in the water at all times, with less than 8 there will be times when only one SSBN will be out there. Just one covering a country with the land mass and sea access of Russia

Hence Russia's problem with those few, weak-sauced Borei A, which seem to be as good as it gets for them.

Overall, great job. Not.

Arrow wrote:

The start allows for much more ICBM and SLBM than Russia has. USA has  much more missiles.

Bulava carries between 6 - 10 warheads.  multiply 16x10 and you get 160 warheads.  x that by a total of planned 8 - 10 subs and that is 1,600 warheads.  Exceeding the 1,500 limit.

But since you are too stupid to do math, lets do some more shall we?

So if they go for 8 Borei's, then that is 1,280 warheads for all 8 vessels. Now lets see, I will be nice and state its 6 warheads so that will make it = 768 warheads on each vessel. Now they currently have active 6 Delta IV's and about 3 Delta III's. Both carry Sineva which carry 4 warheads (or 8 smaller ones). 16 missiles for Delta IV's.

Wow, thats a lot of missiles.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Arrow wrote:Only 16 SLBM, old reactor.

Its an improved serial build of the initial Norei batch, updated with tweaks. What did you expect?

Then the build time shouldn'tve been so slow. We expected a fully version that was better in all combat qualities than the original 955.

Well in all fairness the first borei's they used hulls from already partial made submarines. With the first borei 2 this is the first one they are building from the ground up.

miketheterrible wrote:x that by a total of planned 8 - 10 subs and that is 1,600 warheads.  Exceeding the 1,500 limit.

I don't think they'll go over 8 at this rate. But in any case. 4 boats = 1 in the water, patrolling.
Think of warheads per patrolling boat, not overall. Add the possibility of one boat being on standby and that's it.

miketheterrible wrote:

Arrow wrote:

The start allows for much more ICBM and SLBM than Russia has. USA has  much more missiles.

Bulava carries between 6 - 10 warheads.  multiply 16x10 and you get 160 warheads.  x that by a total of planned 8 - 10 subs and that is 1,600 warheads.  Exceeding the 1,500 limit.

It can have also just 1 big. No ? The more of them there is, the less they are powerfull.

KiloGolf wrote:It seems Russia is unable to produce well-armed SSBNs. 16 SLBMs is way too low, and that high number of torpedo tubes seems a bit useless. Also I'm not so sure about the procured numbers, way too low.

Don't worry, their MIRVs, new sea bottom ICBMs & BM trains will make up for that!
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-wants-the-strangest-all-weapons-underwater-icbm-23295?page=show
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%84_(%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0)

The new trains will carry six missiles instead of three. A Russian defense industry official told Sputnik News in 2015 that the missile trains “will not need any specific big cars. They will completely coincide with the existing parameters of railcars and will therefore be completely hidden from a foe's reconnaissance and surveillance. Moreover, the system will enable launches virtually everywhere on the railway bed in contrast with the previous system that required special launch conditions.” http://nationalinterest.org/blog/russias-nuclear-missile-death-train-arriving-2019-19581

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:x that by a total of planned 8 - 10 subs and that is 1,600 warheads.  Exceeding the 1,500 limit.

I don't think they'll go over 8 at this rate. But in any case. 4 boats = 1 in the water, patrolling.
Think of warheads per patrolling boat, not overall. Add the possibility of one boat being on standby and that's it.

They will cause they will have to replace the Delta IV's eventually and they expect to have at least 10 - 11 active boats.  Reason for 8 now (it was already stated that 3 more are to be purchased with GPV2025) is simply because Delta IV's are rather not old and still very capable, while carrying brand new Sineva BM's which I should add, are better than Bulava but that is for a different discussion.  They carry 4 warheads each.

Actually, in reality, currently the active submarine fleet of Russia exceeds the allowed amount of nuclear warheads. That goes for the US as well. So instead, they either use BM's with single warheads or couple of warheads. Because Russia's ground based ICBM structure is rather being overhauled now and Yars is multiple warheads. Once they introduce the heavy ICBM, then it will make matters worst. START severely limits Russia in their nuclear triad capabilities because they have to be smart on how they will distribute it among the groups.

Isos wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

Arrow wrote:

The start allows for much more ICBM and SLBM than Russia has. USA has  much more missiles.

Bulava carries between 6 - 10 warheads.  multiply 16x10 and you get 160 warheads.  x that by a total of planned 8 - 10 subs and that is 1,600 warheads.  Exceeding the 1,500 limit.

It can have also just 1 big. No ? The more of them there is, the less they are powerfull.

They can arrange the SLBMs and warheads however they like and still comply with treaty rules, patrolling SSBNs is all that matters. The rest of the boats won't be armed. START is not the reason for 16 SLBMs. Just an ill-thought design coupled with false expectations of expanding the Borei design to carry 20 SLBMs, which never happened. I guess due to lack of cash.

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

Arrow wrote:

The start allows for much more ICBM and SLBM than Russia has. USA has  much more missiles.

Bulava carries between 6 - 10 warheads.  multiply 16x10 and you get 160 warheads.  x that by a total of planned 8 - 10 subs and that is 1,600 warheads.  Exceeding the 1,500 limit.

It can have also just 1 big. No ? The more of them there is, the less they are powerfull.

They can arrange the SLBMs and warheads however they like and still comply with treaty rules, patrolling SSBNs is all that matters. The rest of the boats won't be armed. START is not the reason for 16 SLBMs. Just an ill-thought design coupled with false expectations of expanding the Borei design to carry 20 SLBMs, which never happened. I guess due to lack of cash.

Negative.  It is active.  Active is what matters in START and if a ship is still in port even without its missiles loaded, that still counts because of the number of missiles and warheads that exist. All 8 Boreis will be active. Just much like Delta IV's that are active are a total of 6 with 1 that is not active. Those 6, even if not "patroling" are still active as they can be loaded at any given time.

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:x that by a total of planned 8 - 10 subs and that is 1,600 warheads.  Exceeding the 1,500 limit.

I don't think they'll go over 8 at this rate. But in any case. 4 boats = 1 in the water, patrolling.
Think of warheads per patrolling boat, not overall. Add the possibility of one boat being on standby and that's it.

They will cause they will have to replace the Delta IV's eventually and they expect to have at least 10 - 11 active boats.  Reason for 8 now (it was already stated that 3 more are to be purchased with GPV2025) is simply because Delta IV's are rather not old and still very capable, while carrying brand new Sineva BM's which I should add, are better than Bulava but that is for a different discussion.  They carry 4 warheads each.

Actually, in reality, currently the active submarine fleet of Russia exceeds the allowed amount of nuclear warheads.  That goes for the US as well.  So instead, they either use BM's with single warheads or couple of warheads.  Because Russia's ground based ICBM structure is rather being overhauled now and Yars is multiple warheads.  Once they introduce the heavy ICBM, then it will make matters worst.  START severely limits Russia in their nuclear triad capabilities because they have to be smart on how they will distribute it among the groups.

Can you figure out the difference between "active fleet" and "patrolling fleet"?

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:x that by a total of planned 8 - 10 subs and that is 1,600 warheads.  Exceeding the 1,500 limit.

I don't think they'll go over 8 at this rate. But in any case. 4 boats = 1 in the water, patrolling.
Think of warheads per patrolling boat, not overall. Add the possibility of one boat being on standby and that's it.

They will cause they will have to replace the Delta IV's eventually and they expect to have at least 10 - 11 active boats.  Reason for 8 now (it was already stated that 3 more are to be purchased with GPV2025) is simply because Delta IV's are rather not old and still very capable, while carrying brand new Sineva BM's which I should add, are better than Bulava but that is for a different discussion.  They carry 4 warheads each.

Actually, in reality, currently the active submarine fleet of Russia exceeds the allowed amount of nuclear warheads.  That goes for the US as well.  So instead, they either use BM's with single warheads or couple of warheads.  Because Russia's ground based ICBM structure is rather being overhauled now and Yars is multiple warheads.  Once they introduce the heavy ICBM, then it will make matters worst.  START severely limits Russia in their nuclear triad capabilities because they have to be smart on how they will distribute it among the groups.

Can you figure out the difference between "active fleet" and "patrolling fleet"?

Active fleet is when the vessels are at any given time to be sent out. Patrolling are those that are out at the given moment. Active fleet is actually accounted for. You think all those Topols and Yars are on constant patrol? No. But they are accounted for.

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Can you figure out the difference between "active fleet" and "patrolling fleet"?

Active fleet is when the vessels are at any given time to be sent out.  Patrolling are those that are out at the given moment.  Active fleet is actually accounted for.  You think all those Topols and Yars are on constant patrol? No.  But they are accounted for.

Yes, but one does not arm those accounted vessels that sit in the port getting reactor repairs, etc.

miketheterrible wrote:Negative.  It is active.  Active is what matters in START and if a ship is still in port even without its missiles loaded, that still counts because of the number of missiles and warheads that exist.  All 8 Boreis will be active.  Just much like Delta IV's that are active are a total of 6 with 1 that is not active.  Those 6, even if not "patroling" are still active as they can be loaded at any given time.

You keep your SLBMs/warheads in storage on the side and only need to arm the patrolling boomers mate. So that's 2 boomers for Russia. You can't load them at any given time as the nature of SSBN operations involve most of their service time sitting in the port. Arming them by itself takes time and rest assured their ports are targets so it's useless to plan anything like that.

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Can you figure out the difference between "active fleet" and "patrolling fleet"?

Active fleet is when the vessels are at any given time to be sent out.  Patrolling are those that are out at the given moment.  Active fleet is actually accounted for.  You think all those Topols and Yars are on constant patrol? No.  But they are accounted for.

Yes, but one does not arm those accounted vessels that sit in the port getting repairs.

miketheterrible wrote:Negative.  It is active.  Active is what matters in START and if a ship is still in port even without its missiles loaded, that still counts because of the number of missiles and warheads that exist.  All 8 Boreis will be active.  Just much like Delta IV's that are active are a total of 6 with 1 that is not active.  Those 6, even if not "patroling" are still active as they can be loaded at any given time.

You keep your SLMBs/warheads in storage on the side and only need to arm patrolling boomers mate. So that's 2 boomers for Russia.

Hence why storage is actually monitored by the parties from START.  Because they are accounted for.  Doesn't matter if the vessel is out on sea or not. Why else do both sides get to visit the nuclear storage facilities? It is so that it guarantees that both sides are actually following through with START. So all this hoopla you hear on the news about "secret this or that" is nothing but media hype. Both sides know because they visit the facilities. If there are indeed secret facilities of unaccounted nuclear arsenal, then that is a whole different issue then altogether. But thats beside the point, if the vessel is at port and its weapons are in storage, it still counts.

KiloGolf wrote:But in any case. 4 boats = 1 in the water, patrolling.
Think of warheads per patrolling boat, not overall. Add the possibility of one boat being on standby and that's it.

Even those not on patrol -i.e. in port or exercising can still
hit most of USA from their bases, in the Arctic & NE Pacific, just like the road mobile Topol ICBMs that can do it through opened roofs w/o leaving their garages! And I suspect they don't unload all of their BMs while inport for that very reason & to save $ on those boring patrols.

miketheterrible wrote:Hence why storage is actually monitored by the parties from START.  Because they are accounted for.  Doesn't matter if the vessel is out on sea or not.  Why else do both sides get to visit the nuclear storage facilities?  It is so that it guarantees that both sides are actually following through with START.  So all this hoopla you hear on the news about "secret this or that" is nothing but media hype.  Both sides know because they visit the facilities.  If there are indeed secret facilities of unaccounted nuclear arsenal, then that is a whole different issue then altogether.  But thats beside the point, if the vessel is at port and its weapons are in storage, it still counts.

It matters as vessels in port are not kept armed. Patrolling boats in nuclear deterrent is all that one needs to focus.

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

Arrow wrote:

The start allows for much more ICBM and SLBM than Russia has. USA has  much more missiles.

Bulava carries between 6 - 10 warheads.  multiply 16x10 and you get 160 warheads.  x that by a total of planned 8 - 10 subs and that is 1,600 warheads.  Exceeding the 1,500 limit.

It can have also just 1 big. No ? The more of them there is, the less they are powerfull.

They can arrange the SLBMs and warheads however they like and still comply with treaty rules, patrolling SSBNs is all that matters. The rest of the boats won't be armed. START is not the reason for 16 SLBMs. Just an ill-thought design coupled with false expectations of expanding the Borei design to carry 20 SLBMs, which never happened. I guess due to lack of cash.

Well no START covers all delivery vehicles for example when the treaty was signed.

Three hundred sixty-five B-52s where stripped down and chopped up by the US.

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Hence why storage is actually monitored by the parties from START.  Because they are accounted for.  Doesn't matter if the vessel is out on sea or not.  Why else do both sides get to visit the nuclear storage facilities?  It is so that it guarantees that both sides are actually following through with START.  So all this hoopla you hear on the news about "secret this or that" is nothing but media hype.  Both sides know because they visit the facilities.  If there are indeed secret facilities of unaccounted nuclear arsenal, then that is a whole different issue then altogether.  But thats beside the point, if the vessel is at port and its weapons are in storage, it still counts.

It matters as vessels in port are not kept armed. Patrolling boats in nuclear deterrent is all that one needs to focus.

But once again, the missiles in storage are accounted for. in other words, if you create 8 vessels carrying 20 BM's and each one carries 8 - 10 warheads, and they kept all those missiles in storage and their respective warheads in the storage, guess what? Russia now broke the START treaty.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:But in any case. 4 boats = 1 in the water, patrolling.
Think of warheads per patrolling boat, not overall. Add the possibility of one boat being on standby and that's it.

Those not on patrol &/ in maintenance-i.e. in port or exercising can still
hit most of USA from their bases & both in the Arctic & NE Pacific, just like road mobile Topol ICBMs that can do w/o leaving their garages.  

They can, but they won't as their port will receive a strike before they can load-up anything of use.

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Hence why storage is actually monitored by the parties from START.  Because they are accounted for.  Doesn't matter if the vessel is out on sea or not.  Why else do both sides get to visit the nuclear storage facilities?  It is so that it guarantees that both sides are actually following through with START.  So all this hoopla you hear on the news about "secret this or that" is nothing but media hype.  Both sides know because they visit the facilities.  If there are indeed secret facilities of unaccounted nuclear arsenal, then that is a whole different issue then altogether.  But thats beside the point, if the vessel is at port and its weapons are in storage, it still counts.

It matters as vessels in port are not kept armed. Patrolling boats in nuclear deterrent is all that one needs to focus.

But once again, the missiles in storage are accounted for.  in other words, if you create 8 vessels carrying 20 BM's and each one carries 8 - 10 warheads, and they kept all those missiles in storage and their respective warheads in the storage, guess what? Russia now broke the START treaty.

You can have your missiles in storage and most of the warheads divided among the patrolling boats. See my point?

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Hence why storage is actually monitored by the parties from START.  Because they are accounted for.  Doesn't matter if the vessel is out on sea or not.  Why else do both sides get to visit the nuclear storage facilities?  It is so that it guarantees that both sides are actually following through with START.  So all this hoopla you hear on the news about "secret this or that" is nothing but media hype.  Both sides know because they visit the facilities.  If there are indeed secret facilities of unaccounted nuclear arsenal, then that is a whole different issue then altogether.  But thats beside the point, if the vessel is at port and its weapons are in storage, it still counts.

It matters as vessels in port are not kept armed. Patrolling boats in nuclear deterrent is all that one needs to focus.

But once again, the missiles in storage are accounted for.  in other words, if you create 8 vessels carrying 20 BM's and each one carries 8 - 10 warheads, and they kept all those missiles in storage and their respective warheads in the storage, guess what? Russia now broke the START treaty.

You can have your missiles in storage and  most of the warheads divided among the patrolling boats. See my point?

then that is already the case. As they have to distribute it among the various vessels. Then they have to distribute it among the various ground based systems. This argument is getting pointless.