Project 955: Borei class SSBN

Is there a limit for what can be deployed by Navy subs? I always thought the 1550 number was for all warheads, and there was no division of warheads per service branch.

Big_Gazza wrote:The Bulava missiles are specifically designed for defeating ABM systems, and are broadly comparable to the advanced R-29 variants such as Layner which have been developed to ensure the Deltas remain effective.  

Wait what? Hitler lied to me? Damn that stinking fascist rat and damn the German people and the Scandanavians for good measure..... I will have that fascist pig and all of his family shot by tomorrow no one messes with (redacted) and gets away with it.

GarryB wrote:you can have a maximum of 2.5 Borei submarines

Wow I cannot wait to see this half Borei this should be a good laugh.

GarryB wrote:

AFAIK there is no limit per branch but I dare say having all the nuclear weapons in 8 subs would defeat the purpose of the nuclear triad...

There are limits on launch platforms and individual warheads.

What are you talking about?
Russian Navy will have 8 Boreis and 7 Delta4.
Delta 3 will probably soon be retired but thats still a hell of alot more than 500 warheads

8 Boreis=1000 Warheads
7 Delta 4=448 Warheads

Starting from the fourth hull, all submarines of the Borei class will have 20 missile tubes each, versus 16 for the first three boats. If armed with the Bulava (missile) with ten warheads atop each, a single Borei-class SSBN could then carry 200 warheads - as much as the entire nuclear arsenal of the United Kingdom

Under the terms of the treaty, the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers will be reduced by half. The treaty limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, which is down nearly two-thirds from the original START treaty, as well as 10% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty.[9] The total number of deployed warheads, however, could exceed the 1,550 limit by a few hundred because per bomber only one warhead is counted regardless of how many it actually carries.[9] It will also limit the number of deployed and non-deployed inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers, submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments to 800. The number of deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments is limited to 700.[10] The treaty allows for satellite and remote monitoring, as well as 18 on-site inspections per year to verify limits.[9]

Under the terms of the treaty, the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers will be reduced by half. The treaty limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, which is down nearly two-thirds from the original START treaty, as well as 10% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty.[9] The total number of deployed warheads, however, could exceed the 1,550 limit by a few hundred because per bomber only one warhead is counted regardless of how many it actually carries.[9] It will also limit the number of deployed and non-deployed inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers, submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments to 800. The number of deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments is limited to 700.[10] The treaty allows for satellite and remote monitoring, as well as 18 on-site inspections per year to verify limits.[9]

In 2009 Russia had
Strategic forces (total) 620 Delivery vehicles and 2,787 warheads

runaway wrote:

GarryB wrote:

AFAIK there is no limit per branch but I dare say having all the nuclear weapons in 8 subs would defeat the purpose of the nuclear triad...

There are limits on launch platforms and individual warheads.

What are you talking about?
Russian Navy will have 8 Boreis and 7 Delta4.
Delta 3 will probably soon be retired but thats still a hell of alot more than 500 warheads

8 Boreis=1000 Warheads
7 Delta 4=448 Warheads

Starting from the fourth hull, all submarines of the Borei class will have 20 missile tubes each, versus 16 for the first three boats. If armed with the Bulava (missile) with ten warheads atop each, a single Borei-class SSBN could then carry 200 warheads - as much as the entire nuclear arsenal of the United Kingdom

Under the terms of the treaty, the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers will be reduced by half. The treaty limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, which is down nearly two-thirds from the original START treaty, as well as 10% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty.[9] The total number of deployed warheads, however, could exceed the 1,550 limit by a few hundred because per bomber only one warhead is counted regardless of how many it actually carries.[9] It will also limit the number of deployed and non-deployed inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers, submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments to 800. The number of deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments is limited to 700.[10] The treaty allows for satellite and remote monitoring, as well as 18 on-site inspections per year to verify limits.[9]

Under the terms of the treaty, the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers will be reduced by half. The treaty limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, which is down nearly two-thirds from the original START treaty, as well as 10% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty.[9] The total number of deployed warheads, however, could exceed the 1,550 limit by a few hundred because per bomber only one warhead is counted regardless of how many it actually carries.[9] It will also limit the number of deployed and non-deployed inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers, submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments to 800. The number of deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments is limited to 700.[10] The treaty allows for satellite and remote monitoring, as well as 18 on-site inspections per year to verify limits.[9]

In 2009 Russia had
Strategic forces (total) 620 Delivery vehicles and 2,787 warheads

The warhead inventory of 8x Borei class is 8 x 16 x 6 = 768 assuming 6x MIRV each (which is the usual max warhead count on public domain sources). In practice, they will reduce this in line with arms limitation treaties and increase the number of decoys and penetration aids. ~500 deployed warheads on 128 launchers is a good estimate IMHO.

Deltas are aging and will be retired from combat duty. I'd expect the best hulls would be preserved and converted for special purposes, such as the BS-64 Podmoskovye mini-sub tender, or maybe as a carrier for Status-6 strategic torpedo/drone if it becomes a viable weapon, or maybe as non-nuke cruise missile carriers. The other hulls would be scrapped and maybe cannibalized for operating spares for the remaining vessels. Either way, they won't count in strategic totals in any significant way.

BTW the 4th Borei has been launched and she has 16 tubes, not 20. USN Ohios have 24 because the sea-based leg of the US nuke triad is the primary force. Russia is a land power and concentrates on land-based missiles, so her SSBNs don't need as many tubes.

One factor that is usually glossed over is 3rd party SSBNs. In the past, 3rd parties worked against Soviet/Russian interests as French/UK SLBM totals were clearly part of the NATO alliance, and naturally, the US refused to make any allowances when settling on missile totals under treaty. With the rise of China however, its fair to say that Chinese sea-based missiles will in Russia favour, so I wonder how long it will be until Neocons start to demand that Chinese missiles be (partially) counted against Russian totals?

GarryB wrote:

The warhead inventory of 8x Borei class is 8 x 16 x 6 = 768 assuming 6x MIRV each (which is the usual max warhead count on public domain sources). In practice, they will reduce this in line with arms limitation treaties and increase the number of decoys and penetration aids. ~500 deployed warheads on 128 launchers is a good estimate IMHO.

The 20 tubes per sub is a western estimate and quite clearly unlikely.

They will most likely carry 3 warheads per missile with 16 missiles per boat and 8 boats so they will have about 384 warheads at sea in their Boreis.

They still have quite a few Delta IVs which are perfectly acceptable platforms that will increase the number of warheads to just about 500.

Most of the Russian strategic nuclear warheads are on trucks or in silos and soon to be in trains, with roughly a third more in cruise missile carrying strategic aircraft.

Ok, although 3 warheads per missile is easy to increase should they want or need to. The train mounted ICBM will not be counted in the 1500 limit as they are not part of the treaty.

If the 955A will not have 20 tubes, then what is the difference to 955, maybe a reconfigured pump jet system?

Wiki " The fourth ship of the class will be constructed under a new 955A modification. It is reported by unnamed sources that this modification will include major structural changes and probably other changes. If these reports are true, technically the fourth ship will be the lead ship of a new Borei II class, though this has not been officially confirmed."

The Knyaz Vladimir, boat nr 4 has recently been launched and is planned to be comissioned in 2018 so it should be easy to tell from photos what the main difference is.

Project 955s have been designed in late 80ies early 90ies, it is only natural after having completed a first batch to both correct any little design detail that has proved not satisfactory and to improve them with all technological advancements that have made themselves available between the 90ies and today.

The first batch will likely get upgrades in around a decade, after all the 955As will be in service, to get as much as possible both logistic and capabilities communality between 955s and 955As.

Question:

According to this article no new Boreis will be laid down until 2023.

http://www.atomic-energy.ru/news/2017/12/26/82045

That is 7 year gap since last one. This does not sound like good move, will they have enough SSBNs to cover everything they need to or am I missing something?

Looks like a lot of downtime...

PapaDragon wrote:
Question:

According to this article no new Boreis will be laid down until 2023.

http://www.atomic-energy.ru/news/2017/12/26/82045

That is 7 year gap since last one. This does not sound like good move, will they have enough SSBNs to cover everything they need to or am I missing something?

Looks like a lot of downtime...

1) Su-30 SM was very recently accepted in RuAF

2) Apparently SSBNsdont have priority as before and more efort will go to ssytem-6 (drone carrier )or ocean bottom based BMs .



I got to Russian MoD website and send my proposal for System 6 name. My proposal was - sub: nautilius pompilius drone: goodbye america

GunshipDemocracy wrote:.....
1) Su-30 SM was very recently accepted in RuAF ...

How does this affect submarine procurement?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:.....

2) Apparently SSBNsdont have priority as before and more efort will go to ssytem-6 (drone carrier )or ocean bottom based BMs ....

Converted Borei would be ideal for this work, they could easily fit plenty of Status 6 on it and it's a proven design.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:.....I got to Russian MoD website and send my proposal for System 6 name. My proposal was - sub: nautilius pompilius drone: goodbye america

Why not Ragnarok? Seems appropriate, and Vikings did found original Russian state.

You could drop that suggestion if you pop back there.

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:.....
1) Su-30 SM was very recently accepted in RuAF ...

How does this affect submarine procurement?

lead time between actual first in units and final acceptance.

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:.....

2) Apparently SSBNsdont have priority as before and more efort will go to ssytem-6 (drone carrier )or  ocean bottom based BMs ....

Converted Borei would be ideal for this work, they could easily fit plenty of Status 6 on it and it's a proven design.

I was just guessing There must be a reason why SSNS are not tat urgent priority.  Avangard/Rubezh?  Sarmatian?

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:.....I got to Russian MoD website and send my proposal for System 6 name.  My proposal was -  sub: nautilius pompilius drone: goodbye america

Why not Ragnarok? Seems appropriate, and Vikings did found original Russian state.

You could drop that suggestion if you pop back there.

Dunno Sweden to me is more like Ikea, kotbullars and drunkards then Norse mythology

GarryB wrote:The don't need large numbers of SSBNs... in fact having too many would actually be a bit of a problem in terms of their commitments to treaties regarding strategic weapons......

I just did some reading and yeah, 8 Boreis is enough for now, combined with Deltas that would be double digit number SSBNs

For some reason I assumed that US Navy has ~30 of SSBNs in service (I must be in full Cold War mode lately) but correct number is 14 Ohios (+ 4 more in SSGN setup so those don't count)

So numbers are OK, Deltas should be retiring by the time next batch of Boreis is launched

GarryB wrote:..... imagine a Delta IV with the SLBMs removed and a bank of 150 subsonic nuclear powered unlimited range cruise missiles on board.......

When you have missile with unlimited range it doesn't matter where you launch it from so this would be redundant (especially with Status-6 in play)

GarryB wrote:....During peace time you could swap out those nuke powered and nuke armed cruise missiles for 5,000km range conventional cruise missiles... so you just need one sub to take out 150 targets instead of a rather large number of corvettes...

They could probably put a wide range of different missile types on board...

Now this is definitely something they should do (USA did it with those 4 Ohios), been saying it for a while

And we do know that they plan on retiring couple of Deltas due to high noise output which makes them unsuited for their current role but other than that those ships are 100% solid

Replacing SLBMs with Kalibrs would turn them into excellent arsenal ships, having them tag along with couple of corvettes would turn those corvettes from light patrol into a force capable of flattening a decent sized country at discount price, perfect for Middle East

No need for large naval task force when corvette can just send target data and Delta can handle the rest, sub's noise in not relevant in that scenario[/quote]

Are you sending ships with less than 15 days endurance along with SSBN (even if converted to SSGN role) with some months endurance?

What's the rationale?

Truth is, if you need to operate far from your shores, you need very long range ships.

Even frigates would be a long shot employed in conjunction with anything nuclear powered, but corvettes would be a plain joke.

And anyway Russia does need very long range surface ships, if not else, just to do the work of the madman able to cause troubles all around the world.

Corvettes are useful just until they can make larger and longer ships free to deploy almost anywhere in the world, just to remember everybody that whatever happens anywhere in the world, Russia will be always there, if not to make things better, at least to make them worst.

Peŕrier wrote:

Corvettes are useful just until they can make larger and longer ships free to deploy almost anywhere in the world, just to remember everybody that whatever happens anywhere in the world, Russia will be always there, if not to make things better, at least to make them worst.

They also need very big ships specially in the north with the new sea route that will show up. A big lider can control ships there for months and secure the airspace against US bombers and cruise missiles but also control under sea US SSGN.

Peŕrier wrote:Are you sending ships with less than 15 days endurance along with SSBN (even if converted to SSGN role) with some months endurance?

What's the rationale?......

Rationale is that they will soon have Delta sub available for stuff like that and nobody was talking about priority deployments​, I was talking about Middle East

100+ LACM slots on already available vessel is good thing to have

Bulava launch from Yuri Dolgorukii SSBN

PapaDragon wrote:
Bulava launch from Yuri Dolgorukii SSBN

Second was bit loser to fall back to the water before the engine ignition.

That was really quite an amazing piece of footage, with that 2nd missile doing a nice "power slide" on the way up.  

Judging by the trajectories, I presume that these test firings are conducted with the SSBN at a less than optimal attitude, eg with a severe list and down at the bow?  sub-optimal pressures in the missile ejection systems?  All to simulate getting the payloads away in less than ideal conditions or with ship systems compromised by battle damage?

The second missile looks like they tested intentionaly the missile in some back up mode if the start doesn't work correctly to see if the software is well adapted for different situations. They wouldn't have shown the video if it had really some issues because US expert could have analyzed the problem and it would have been a secret given to US.

The fourth Borei will now be comissioned in 2019.
http://tass.com/defense/1001781

So would be suprised if more then 4 submarines will be in service by 2020.

walle83 wrote:The fourth Borei will now be comissioned in 2019.
http://tass.com/defense/1001781

So would be suprised if more then 4 submarines will be in service by 2020.

First sub in new series, delays are unsurprising.

What matters is that they are getting laid down and built, they will be delivered soon or a later.

Most important thing is to avoid Gorshkov-style clustefuck where they stop building ships and give up.

Boreis are built and will be coming online, that's the important thing. Hopefully they order more Yasens as well.

PapaDragon wrote:

walle83 wrote:The fourth Borei will now be comissioned in 2019.
http://tass.com/defense/1001781

So would be suprised if more then 4 submarines will be in service by 2020.

First sub in new series, delays are unsurprising.

What matters is that they are getting laid down and built, they will be delivered soon or a later.

Most important thing is to avoid Gorshkov-style clustefuck where they stop building ships and give up.

Boreis are built and will be coming online, that's the important thing. Hopefully they order more Yasens as well.

True, but at this speed the last sub wont be deliverd untill 2030. The plan was, if i remember correctly, that all 8 submarines would have been comissioned by 2020.

walle83 wrote:.....
True, but at this speed the last sub wont be deliverd untill 2030. The plan was, if i remember correctly, that all 8 submarines would have been comissioned by 2020.

Later ones will be built and tested faster, same as any ship class. Just look at Yasen pace.

As for that plan you mentioned, it's a plan from decade ago. Long since ditched.