Project 955: Borei class SSBN

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.

If there is one thing they are able to produce it's well armed SSBN. And they are doing it.

Those 16 missiles are more than enough to erase entire US seaboard of choice.

As for torpedo tubes original Borei was built with unused nose section of Akula sub hence more tubes. An interesting sideffect, not design choice.

KiloGolf wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote: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.

Pl. see my edited post u quoted. Most, of them won't be unloaded to begin with!

PapaDragon wrote:Those 16 missiles are more than enough to erase entire US seaboard of choice.

16 missiles means 16 different, large strategic targets. 2 boats on patrol means 32 targets. Is that enough to cover Russia's potentially vast threat environment? I don't think so. Remember SSBNs offer the advantage of better positioning vs the threat, offering zero chances of interception.

I'd feel a lot better with 3 boats on patrol, each with 20 or better 24 missiles. Just to keep the haters worried.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote: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.

Pl. see my edited post u quoted. Most, of them won't be unloaded to begin with!

Yeah but is it smart not to unload? I don't think so, it's probably unsafe and will lead to wasting SLMBs and warheads, if e.g. you get a fire breaking out during maintenance (as it happens all over the world).

It may be unsafe, but it'll ensure a 2nd strike & thus deterrence.
Russia isn't USA that can afford 4 SSBNs on patrol 24/7. Perhaps u'll be happy to pay that bill for 3 or more SSBNs armed with 72 BMs on patrol 24/7?

KiloGolf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:Those 16 missiles are more than enough to erase entire US seaboard of choice.

16 missiles means 16 different, large strategic targets. 2 boats on patrol means 32 targets. Is that enough to cover Russia's potentially vast threat environment? I don't think so. Remember SSBNs offer the advantage of better positioning vs the threat, offering zero chances of interception.

I'd feel a lot better with 3 boats on patrol, each with 20 or better 24 missiles. Just to keep the haters worried.

List of cities on West Coast:

Spokane
Spokane Valley
Seattle
Bellevue
Tacoma
Portland
Gresham
Vancouver
Sacramento
San Francisco
Oakland
San Jose
Stockton
Modesto
Fresno
Bakersfield
Porterville
San Bernardino
Riverside
Los Angeles
Long Beach
Anaheim
San Diego

23 targets in total.

Borei SSBN carries MIRV missiles with 6-10 warheads. Thats anywhere between 96 and 160 nukes. And some targets only need one warhead.

Looks good to me.

And you are right, 3 boats on patrol are good number to aspire to. But warhead count is beyond abundant for what they are needed.

Arrow wrote:Yes Bulava is  worse than Trident I  from the 80s. Throw weight only 1150 kg. Sineva about 3000kg. More warhead, more decoy, more range. Sineva is comparable with Trident II but it is for  liquid fuel. Bualava had a frequent failure. This is not good project.




Only 6 MIRV. Bulava has only 1150 kg throw weight. 10 MIRV when reducing the much range

Would suspect only 3-4 from a distance. For 10 would have to be mid Pacific at least.

Arrow wrote:Yes Bulava is  worse than Trident I  from the 80s. Throw weight only 1150 kg. Sineva about 3000kg. More warhead, more decoy, more range. Sineva is comparable with Trident II but it is for  liquid fuel. Bualava had a frequent failure. This is not good project.

Only 6 MIRV. Bulava has only 1150 kg throw weight. 10 MIRV when reducing the much range

Total BS.    

Bulava has a liquid fuelled U/S to allow it to fly a low flat trajectory and to perform course corrections to defeat ABM systems, and is packed with penetration aids. Name me another SLBM anywhere with same? Sineva/Layner are the latest R-29 variants, much improved and with penetration aids, but still conventional missiles, with a pure ballistic path post-3rd stage burn-out and not capable of defeating ABM as the Bulava is.  Sineva has better throw weight only because it is liquid fuelled not solid (liquids are higher-energy with superior ISP).

Trident D5 by comparison is old hat, 80s technology. It has a greater throw weight because its bigger and heavier (59T vs 36.8T), not because its somehow uber-freaking-awesome Yankistani tech.

D5 is claimed to have 90m CEP, and most references give Bulava ~350m, but this is all BS and based on solely on guesswork as its all strictly classified info.  I'm sure the US knows the reality, but neither they nor the Ruskies are saying.

Regarding 16 vs 24 missiles of Borei vs Ohio, the reason is due to environmental operating conditions.  Russian SSBNs operate in Arctic waters and potential collision with sea ice needs to be accounted in design.  That means adequate spacing needs to be allowed between outer hull and missile compartments to ensure that worst-case impacts do not lead to loss of containment of missile tube. This means they must be more conservative than the US, who clearly don't have to worry about collisions with sea-ice (just Japanese fishing boats, pleasure craft and cargo ships   ) so can pack their missiles in like sardines with minimal clearances.

Frequent failures?  Bulava was an entirely new weapons systems, and didn't draw upon the long standing legacy of Soviet liquid-fueled SLBMs.  Failures in development were inevitable, especially considering the generally degraded condition of Russian MIC back in the early 00s. BTW forget the BS list of success/failures in wiki.  These fuktards have no fucking idea on the intent of the tests, and routinely inferred the auto-destruct of the 2nd missile in salvo tests as failures instead of the planned aborts that they were.  Its another case of shit-canning the Russians at every opportunity.

Bulava IS a good project, and the missile has proved successful.  In true Ruskie fashion, they will introduce evolutionary improvements as time goes on, and it will improve further.

The SALT treaties (strategic armed limitations treaty) and the Start treaties (strategic arms reduction treaties) are intended to first limit (SALT) and then reduce (START) the number of strategic nuclear weapons held specifically by the Soviet Union and then Russia and the United States of America.

They don't include patrol or storage platforms and warheads, they cover all stocks whether they are ready to fire or not.

Russian SLBMs are able to hit most of their targets from the pier they operate from and most of the time the vessels sitting at port are fully armed because they are not having their reactor overhauled.

In a time of tension more SSBNs would be deployed, making a successful surprise attack less effective.

It would not surprise me if the pier side storage for SLBMs could launch those SLBMs on their own if needed... and claims they could take out the ports with preemptive strikes are amusing as most are tunnelled into mountains and would not be easy to assure destruction.

Single nuke is not some super weapon that instantly destroys everything in its path... a large city like London would take lots of warheads to effectively destroy and cities or ports that are not flat would be just as difficult.

Only 6 MIRV. Bulava has only 1150 kg throw weight. 10 MIRV when reducing the much range

The Russians have developed a range of very light warheads... are you suggesting their ability to make nuke warheads is limited.

Equally there are plenty of targets in Europe they will be wanting to hit that should be well within range of the Northern fleet base.

Talking about why Bulava has such and not other characteristics...from Russian wiki:

However, if the upper stage is completed and the warheads are maneuvering with correction [80] , then immediately after the acceleration, it is possible to make the warhead separation and throw out a multitude of mockups of warheads, inflatable foil balloons that also simulate the radio reflectance of the warhead, a cloud of dipole reflectors and modules with active EW assets . Therefore, an unrealistic number of anti-missile systems will be needed to destroy both warheads and mock-up traps against the background of strong active and passive interference. In addition, the warheads themselves are sufficiently strong and heat-resistant objects, [79]so they can not be destroyed with fragmentation or laser munitions, since the warheads are designed for extreme heating and pressure when entering the atmosphere. Therefore, the use of kinetic high-precision anti-missiles for direct collision is required both in THAAD . It should also be noted that one US anti-missile is much more expensive than one warhead. Therefore, the destruction of the missile in the dispersal area before the separation of warheads is the highest priority for US missile defense systems [79] , especially considering that the launch of naval ICBMs takes place on the high seas without the possibility of removing the launch site for its own state border into its own territory. Therefore, the greatest threat to naval ICBMs from submarines are NATO destroyers with the Aegis system, capable of effectively destroying missiles in the dispersed area.
According to Yuri Solomonov, the general designer of Topol and Bulava [81] , a rather serious decrease in the payload of a rocket is associated with its higher survivability, including a low active area and its short duration. According to him, " the Topol-M " and the "Bulava" have an active site 3-4 times less compared to domestic missiles, and 1.5-2 times compared to American, French, and Chinese . " The time of the "Bulava" in the dispersed area coincides with the best solid-fueled ballistic missile of NATO as Trident-II [82] .
"Bulava" as a solid fuel rocket, which has no concept of fuel leakage and is simpler in design, is more difficult to destroy than liquid, and therefore has increased resistance to damaging factors from a nuclear explosion to laser weapons . [81] In addition, in the "Bulava" maneuvering is carried out in the dispersed section, [79] that for the kinetic interceptors designed for conventional ballistic trajectories as THAAD is of particular complexity.

As for numbers of SSBNs and yesterday's cancellation for Bagruzin trains. I am sure this has a good reason.

Bottom based ICBMs. Maybe Kurier - 2 type of. Ocean is so big, drop 60 missiles on any place in Atlantic (south too) or Pacific. do you have anough AEGIS ships to stop all?

Big_Gazza wrote:

Arrow wrote:Yes Bulava is  worse than Trident I  from the 80s. Throw weight only 1150 kg. Sineva about 3000kg. More warhead, more decoy, more range. Sineva is comparable with Trident II but it is for  liquid fuel. Bualava had a frequent failure. This is not good project.

Only 6 MIRV. Bulava has only 1150 kg throw weight. 10 MIRV when reducing the much range

Total BS.    

Bulava has a liquid fuelled U/S to allow it to fly a low flat trajectory and to perform course corrections to defeat ABM systems, and is packed with penetration aids. Name me another SLBM anywhere with same? Sineva/Layner are the latest R-29 variants, much improved and with penetration aids, but still conventional missiles, with a pure ballistic path post-3rd stage burn-out and not capable of defeating ABM as the Bulava is.  Sineva has better throw weight only because it is liquid fuelled not solid (liquids are higher-energy with superior ISP).

Trident D5 by comparison is old hat, 80s technology. It has a greater throw weight because its bigger and heavier (59T vs 36.8T), not because its somehow uber-freaking-awesome Yankistani tech.

D5 is claimed to have 90m CEP, and most references give Bulava ~350m, but this is all BS and based on solely on guesswork as its all strictly classified info.  I'm sure the US knows the reality, but neither they nor the Ruskies are saying.

Regarding 16 vs 24 missiles of Borei vs Ohio, the reason is due to environmental operating conditions.  Russian SSBNs operate in Arctic waters and potential collision with sea ice needs to be accounted in design.  That means adequate spacing needs to be allowed between outer hull and missile compartments to ensure that worst-case impacts do not lead to loss of containment of missile tube. This means they must be more conservative than the US, who clearly don't have to worry about collisions with sea-ice (just Japanese fishing boats, pleasure craft and cargo ships   ) so can pack their missiles in like sardines with minimal clearances.

Frequent failures?  Bulava was an entirely new weapons systems, and didn't draw upon the long standing legacy of Soviet liquid-fueled SLBMs.  Failures in development were inevitable, especially considering the generally degraded condition of Russian MIC back in the early 00s. BTW forget the BS list of success/failures in wiki.  These fuktards have no fucking idea on the intent of the tests, and routinely inferred the auto-destruct of the 2nd missile in salvo tests as failures instead of the planned aborts that they were.  Its another case of shit-canning the Russians at every opportunity.

Bulava IS a good project, and the missile has proved successful.  In true Ruskie fashion, they will introduce evolutionary improvements as time goes on, and it will improve further.

Bulava is far better then Trident you are pretty much correct.

Granted the true capabilities of both missiles are highly classified so no one knows what they are both capable of.

Unless your that high up in each military anyway.

GarryB wrote:Single nuke is not some super weapon that instantly destroys everything in its path... a large city like London would take lots of warheads to effectively destroy and cities or ports that are not flat would be just as difficult.

Even a single nuke dropped on any city regardless of it's size would instantly severely deprecate real estate value.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Granted the true capabilities of both missiles are highly classified so no one knows what they are both capable of.

Correct but those are all details. What both Trident and Bulava are very capable of is something that is better left in theory because in practice it will all end in the same and very efficient manner.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Arrow wrote:Yes Bulava is  worse than Trident I  from the 80s. Throw weight only 1150 kg. Sineva about 3000kg. More warhead, more decoy, more range. Sineva is comparable with Trident II but it is for  liquid fuel. Bualava had a frequent failure. This is not good project.

Only 6 MIRV. Bulava has only 1150 kg throw weight. 10 MIRV when reducing the much range

Total BS.    

Bulava has a liquid fuelled U/S to allow it to fly a low flat trajectory and to perform course corrections to defeat ABM systems, and is packed with penetration aids. Name me another SLBM anywhere with same? Sineva/Layner are the latest R-29 variants, much improved and with penetration aids, but still conventional missiles, with a pure ballistic path post-3rd stage burn-out and not capable of defeating ABM as the Bulava is.  Sineva has better throw weight only because it is liquid fuelled not solid (liquids are higher-energy with superior ISP).

Trident D5 by comparison is old hat, 80s technology. It has a greater throw weight because its bigger and heavier (59T vs 36.8T), not because its somehow uber-freaking-awesome Yankistani tech.

D5 is claimed to have 90m CEP, and most references give Bulava ~350m, but this is all BS and based on solely on guesswork as its all strictly classified info.  I'm sure the US knows the reality, but neither they nor the Ruskies are saying.

Regarding 16 vs 24 missiles of Borei vs Ohio, the reason is due to environmental operating conditions.  Russian SSBNs operate in Arctic waters and potential collision with sea ice needs to be accounted in design.  That means adequate spacing needs to be allowed between outer hull and missile compartments to ensure that worst-case impacts do not lead to loss of containment of missile tube. This means they must be more conservative than the US, who clearly don't have to worry about collisions with sea-ice (just Japanese fishing boats, pleasure craft and cargo ships   ) so can pack their missiles in like sardines with minimal clearances.

Frequent failures?  Bulava was an entirely new weapons systems, and didn't draw upon the long standing legacy of Soviet liquid-fueled SLBMs.  Failures in development were inevitable, especially considering the generally degraded condition of Russian MIC back in the early 00s. BTW forget the BS list of success/failures in wiki.  These fuktards have no fucking idea on the intent of the tests, and routinely inferred the auto-destruct of the 2nd missile in salvo tests as failures instead of the planned aborts that they were.  Its another case of shit-canning the Russians at every opportunity.

Bulava IS a good project, and the missile has proved successful.  In true Ruskie fashion, they will introduce evolutionary improvements as time goes on, and it will improve further.

Oh not this retarded drivel about CEP. The claim of 90 vs 350 CEP is pure rubbish based on physics. No characteristic of the US variant gives it more trajectory accuracy.
All these systems use the same laser gyroscopes and to assert that Russian control surfaces are inferior is pure intellectual excrement. Russians don't know about fluid dynamics?
Look up the name Kolmogorov and Shkval torpedo. If anything, Russian missiles will have superior control through the atmospheric fluid (for the morons, look it up) than
the Yankeestani variants.

The only way the CEP would be different is for highly maneuverable designs. Since resources are limited, there may be some sacrifice of CEP to overcome ABMs. This, naturally,
does not support chauvinist Yankeestani propaganda about inferior Russian technology.

Also, what does it matter if a 20KT nuke hits 90 or 300 meters from its target?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Also, what does it matter if a 20KT nuke hits 90 or 300 meters from its target?

A 20 kiloton warhead? why would you ever use a tactical nuclear device on a city Russia has 800 kt warheads althoug even thoes will not completely destroy a city.

Is it possible to make all your nuclear weapons multi megaton without withdrawing from that stupid start treaty?

Even a single nuke dropped on any city regardless of it's size would instantly severely deprecate real estate value.

Indeed but a single SLBM landing on a port will hardly take out every single submarine at the hardened underground submarine base at that port, nor the store of nuclear missiles there either.

Russia does not have hundreds of SSBN submarine bases so we can assume that when S-400 and S-500 are operating together they will likely post some nearby that sub base...

The only way the CEP would be different is for highly maneuverable designs. Since resources are limited, there may be some sacrifice of CEP to overcome ABMs.

Actually MARV warheads are more accurate than MIRV warheads because they can fine tune their trajectory right up to detonation or impact depending on what they are set for.

Also, what does it matter if a 20KT nuke hits 90 or 300 meters from its target?

A 20Kt warhead exploding 300m from a mountain base containing a sub base wont be very effective.

the same warhead exploding at 90m wont be very effective either.

GarryB wrote:

A 20Kt warhead exploding 300m from a mountain base containing a sub base wont be very effective.

the same warhead exploding at 90m wont be very effective either.

Atleast someone here doesn't think nukes instant destroyers of anything and eaverything regardless of blast yeild.

For thoes who do not know how powerfull a nuclear device would have to be in order to gaurantee complete destruction of a large city this little device here is a fine example.



Note I said "gaurantee comlete destruction" and not kill all inhabitants or make uninhabitable for a century.

I remeber reading about a 50mt version of the RS-28 Sarmat is this true? Such a warhead would be a great way to scare enemies of and completeley destroy infrastructure.

GarryB wrote:Russian SLBMs are able to hit most of their targets from the pier they operate from and most of the time the vessels sitting at port are fully armed because they are not having their reactor overhauled. In a time of tension more SSBNs would be deployed, making a successful surprise attack less effective.

Exactly, as I said a few posts back. Minimal deterrence is enough, the MAD doctrine is ancient history. They could also overlap deployments &/ increase their turnaround by having replacement crews brought by planes to Arctic islands 1st, then by ships &/ helicopters. Time on patrol can be increased by taking several less BMs & loading their tubes with supplies. 1 US Marine told me that he could live & continue his mission on just 1 MRE for 2 weeks, consuming it in small portions. For 107 total Borei crew, it's = 214 MREs per month.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meal,_Ready-to-Eat
http://www.mreinfo.com/international-rations/russian-irp/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfOTmfwRTFs

Their MRE could include just food in a smaller package, & even if it's good only for 1 week, 428 (if not more) MREs could fit in those tubes!

Hahahahahah... MREs....

I remember some of those being so bad they got the nickname... Meals Rejected by (starving) Ethiopians.

That doesn't mean that the Russian MREs will be rejected by the Russian military, incl. submariners who don't exert as much energy as soldiers, marines, airman or surface sailors! Aboard subs, they can also be mixed with regular foodstuffs for better nutritional balance. Also, dehydrated potato flake mixes & canned veggies, meats & fish take a lot less space than raw potatoes, veggies, meats & fish- with those, time on patrol can be increased w/o or between their resupply. Btw, supplying them will be a lot easier as they don't patrol as far as Mid-Atlantic & Mid- Pacific, unlike the US, UK & the French SSBNs.

Gotta love how media is all 'it copies US sail fillet' as if USSR didn't start doing hull/sail fillets before everyone else & much more thoroughly  

Though combined with the blended in missile area & Ts on the horizontal stabilisers it does have quite an overall 'Omahaski' feel to it.

And I really have no idea WTH the designers thought they were doing with the original reverse rake, blunt form sail.

Edit: I read elsewhere apparently the first 3 all have different rudder/stabiliser configs.
To me that indicates a longitudinal stability issue they've been working to resolve & I'd not be at all surprised if that sail was a significant part of the cause.

I think the change to the sail was foreseen from start.

First boats have been built from sections left from unbuilt SSNs, meaning both cross section was smaller and available length for sail conjunction to hull different, most likely shorter than envisaged in Pr. 995.

So more than an upgrade, I would think this sail is the original one, while first boats are sporting a modified sail to adapt to a structurally quite different hull.

Real changes/updates are more likely those changes in the boat's stern, apart anything else inside the hull itself that could have been upgraded and would never be seen by outside world.

I wonder, why they didn't use those SSN hauls for Yasen SSGNs instead? Were they so desperate to get the 1st 2 Boreys built ASAP?