Project 955: Borei class SSBN

Sure you can talk... in the meantime Russians are doing the opposite. Rather than putting all eggs in one noisy basket thay are splitting them across many stealthy ones.

Of course, from their experience in Syria, if they want to launch a cruise missile attack on land based targets in Syria.... they just send 3-4 Corvettes each time.... except if the target is in Africa it is not so easy to send 3-4 corvettes each time you want to mount an attack.

And while 3-4 corvettes are invulnerable, a noisy Delta IV class sub would be dead meat instantly... NOT.

It is not about creating a super weapon for WWIII that will attack the US with impunity, it is about having an arsenal ship for a slog against a much smaller enemy that likely wont have any response to a corvette let alone a nuclear submarine... the point isn't that a converted Delta class sub will be a super weapon... it would be a useful large container that can carry enough weapons so it can go anywhere in the world and deliver 5 or six decent sized attacks without having to rearm.

As I said, the alternative is a cargo ship converted to the purpose, but that would either require actually buying a cargo ship or making one...

I'm thinking that maybe the decision to build an extra two Borei-As came because they've decided to retire the last remaining Typhoon-class SSBN within the next 10 years (or convert it into something else).

If you are referring to the Typhoon class still in use, isn't that for testing Bulava?

I would expect it does not spend times between tests loaded with SLBMs for operational use as an SSBN.

GarryB wrote:
If you are referring to the Typhoon class still in use, isn't that for testing Bulava?

I usually see it listed as an operational sub on combat duty , although that could just be because the sources are wrong.

I would expect it does not spend times between tests loaded with SLBMs for operational use as an SSBN.

Why not?

SLBMs are also routinely tested from operational subs. Now that this missile is in service, keeping the Typhoon as just a mere test platform for it doesn't make sense. It's an expensive vessel to maintain, and it carries Russia's latest SLBM - so you might as well put it to proper use.

Arrow wrote:

Delta IV is nosiy ?

The Delta I-IIIs were noisy. But I don't think it holds for the Delta IV

It was this year we're they used Delta IV in an exercise we're it launched Sineva missiles

miketheterrible wrote: Surprised everyone here has not blocked him yet like vann.

How to do it?

GarryB wrote:
it is about having an arsenal ship for a slog against a much smaller enemy that likely wont have any response to a corvette let alone a nuclear submarine...

Well for that reason they're conveting 8 Anteys to Kalibr standard and making 7 Yasens. Sounds enough for me. 72 and 32 Kalibrs each.

flamming_python wrote: I usually see it listed as an operational sub on combat duty , although that could just be because the sources are wrong.

Not even Nevsky and Monomakh fire Bulava. Only Dolgoruky. The last Donskoy's Bulava test was 8 years ago. Shishkin's evidence keeps iit in grey colour - officially active, but not operational. My guess would be that they're waiting for more Boreis to be constructed before decomissioning, so they don't have less SSBNs than US.

miketheterrible wrote:It was this year we're they used Delta IV in an exercise we're it launched Sineva missiles

They still use those old missiles? Why not Layner? Does it require different launcher?

Lyner is good but since Borei is to replace the Delta's eventually and Bulava to replace the Sineva/Lyner, the best they did was modernize Sineva with modern targeting systems and other adjustments not I am aware of. So it is a solid missile and able to do what it is intended to do.

I would wager they will, instead of replacing Delta's entirely, they will probably refurbish them for other purposes.

verkhoturye51 wrote:.........
Not even Nevsky and Monomakh fire Bulava. Only Dolgoruky. .....

What do they fire?

PapaDragon wrote:

verkhoturye51 wrote:.........
Not even Nevsky and Monomakh fire Bulava. Only Dolgoruky. .....

What do they fire?

He must be confused cause Nevsky fired Bulava in 2015.

miketheterrible wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

verkhoturye51 wrote:.........
Not even Nevsky and Monomakh fire Bulava. Only Dolgoruky. .....

What do they fire?

He must be confused cause Nevsky fired Bulava in 2015.

After finishing state trials neither Nevsky nor Monomakh fired any Bulava. In the last 3 years only Dolgoruky fires them. The Klinov's critical article (that revealed P-8's flight above all 10 Russian submerged subs last month) suggested that their missile tubes must be empty all the time for some reason.

verkhoturye51 wrote:..........
After finishing state trials neither Nevsky nor Monomakh fired any Bulava. In the last 3 years only Dolgoruky fires them. The Klinov's critical article (that revealed P-8's flight above all 10 Russian submerged subs last month) suggested that their missile tubes must be empty all the time for some reason.

If two Borei subs are not carrying missiles then why did Navy just ordered 2 more Boreis that use those same missiles?

Doesn't it make more sense that those two subs are on combat patrols hence why they don't fire missiles?

And if two brand new Russian SSBNs were out of commission media would be all over it, we wouldn't need some half-literate clown to tell us this because Pentagon would be giving presser ASAP.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

verkhoturye51 wrote:.........
Not even Nevsky and Monomakh fire Bulava. Only Dolgoruky. .....

What do they fire?

He must be confused cause Nevsky fired Bulava in 2015.

After finishing state trials neither Nevsky nor Monomakh fired any Bulava. In the last 3 years only Dolgoruky fires them. The Klinov's critical article (that revealed P-8's flight above all 10 Russian submerged subs last month) suggested that their missile tubes must be empty all the time for some reason.

That is the most ridiculous reasoning I have ever heard.

2015, Nevsky fired missiles.

That article about 10 subs all detected by a P-8 flight is funny because no 10 subs are in same area.  That is for sure.  With no verification or any other info, it sure sounded like nonsense which it was.  As well, from what I have read, the vessels not only patrol same areas together, they are also usually 1 out on sea while others are docked, then vise versa.

Simple fact is, they ordered Borei's and continue to order even more of them, because of Bulava.  Let me give you a piece of advice, this is something I gathered over my many years alive: First off, the government never always tell the full story.  As well, they will never give away all their info/details.  To make subs but cannot use the missiles like you proclaim, is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

PapaDragon wrote:If two Borei subs are not carrying missiles then why did Navy just ordered 2 more Boreis that use those same missiles?

All 3 Boreys in service are officially in comission. In April-May they headed to the sea for exercises. Subs are okay. The problem is with missiles.

miketheterrible wrote:2015, Nevsky fired missiles.

Nevsky fired one missile in 2014 and Monomakh 2 in 2015 unsuccessfully. After that 3 launches from only one sub. Anyway, the problem is even worse. Russian media reported that even Dolgoruky doesn't carry any missiles (only for tests). You can go full Trump calling opposition paranoid or full apartchik but the thing is suspicious.

The 10 subs and 26 surface vessels gathered in early June for the largest RuN exercises since 2000.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:If two Borei subs are not carrying missiles then why did Navy just ordered 2 more Boreis that use those same missiles?

All 3 Boreys in service are officially in comission. In April-May they headed to the sea for exercises. Subs are okay. The problem is with missiles...........

If missiles don't work then why waste money on more super expensive submarines designed solely around those same missiles?

And what the hell was Dolgorukii launching all this time if missiles don't work?

PapaDragon wrote:
If missiles don't work then why waste money on more super expensive submarines designed solely around those same missiles?

And what the hell was Dolgorukii launching all this time if missiles don't work?

Question for million rubles. Klinov didn't say that the missiles don't work. Maybe the state isn't happy with how unreliable they are and are working on something new. In the meantime production is kept at minimum level to have some missiles for tests, pretending that everything is fine.

Except you failed to acknowledge that Bulava has been fired multiple times successfully as of recent which was a salvo fire.

Bulava has been successfuly fired for a while now.

You should also mention that Nevsky test was a success too.

There are continuous holes in the P-8 story.

First a P-8 has limited range especially in tracking, like any of these kind of planes.  Due to limitation, those subs would have to be effectively beside each other which never happens.

Second, that P-8 would have been monitored, tracked as well as shown off if it was there.

Third, if it was tracking the Russian vessels, the Russian vessels wouldn't know it. Only vessels on the surface would. And if that was the case, only reason why P-8 would know is because of surface vessels in area.

So the whole made up story is just that. A way to try and make money and push an agenda. Plus, since it comes from a non official source.

With that said, goes for the same to anyone who hates Bulava cause so far, that missile is now working for last couple years.

One thing you people need to learn is that you really damage your own credibility if you believe words of someone, without evidence or proof of assertion (especially since that someone may have interests and isn't a state employee on the matter), than the MoD. As well, it was confusing with the story since nowhere else they mentioned it besides some sort of "expert".

If it was real, US MoD and their media arm would be repeating the story a million times now.

I usually see it listed as an operational sub on combat duty , although that could just be because the sources are wrong.

Indeed, I recently saw two books at a local gunshop, both were new... one was a rehash of gun articles I have seen since the 1970s with line drawings and generic descriptions of weapons that describe the Stechkin machine pistol as being big and heavy and awkward, and totally ineffective as either a SMG or a pistol. (because of weight and lack of control in full auto).

The other book was written by someone who owns a Stechkin machine pistol and he thinks it is fantastic... accurate... a little heavy, but as he mentions it is a similar loaded weight compared with a 45 calibre pistol with 7 shots, yet it has a 20 round magazine.

Often assumptions are made and because there is no other information available the assumptions become the only information available... and become considered facts.

The question is... is the duty as an SLBM, or as a testing sub for trying out a variety of weapons and sensors and systems?

Why not?

SLBMs are also routinely tested from operational subs. Now that this missile is in service, keeping the Typhoon as just a mere test platform for it doesn't make sense. It's an expensive vessel to maintain, and it carries Russia's latest SLBM - so you might as well put it to proper use.

Except it does not. AFAIK... and admittedly this is not proven fact, but my understanding is that they only replaced one or two SS-N-20 launch tubes with tubes for Bulava, so the rest of the tubes are of little use as the SS-N-20 is no longer in production AFAIK.

Practise launches are common but are simulated and rarely involve actual launches.

Actual test launches are rather more rare and are organised as a test of both the missile and the launch platform.

Tests of multiple missile launches have to be done in Boreis... which makes sense because it makes no difference if you can volley launch from an Akula class sub, because they will be operated from Boreis anyway.

Well for that reason they're conveting 8 Anteys to Kalibr standard and making 7 Yasens. Sounds enough for me. 72 and 32 Kalibrs each.

My understanding that the Oscar upgrades are specifically for Onyx missiles for anti carrier use... which suggests they might delay it and fit them with Zircon missiles instead... after testing them in 2019.

I would wager they will, instead of replacing Delta's entirely, they will probably refurbish them for other purposes.

There were at least two Deltas modified for special research purposes... which normally means divers and mini subs...

And if two brand new Russian SSBNs were out of commission media would be all over it, we wouldn't need some half-literate clown to tell us this because Pentagon would be giving presser ASAP.

They certainly would not be building more Boreis if they were unable to carry Bulavas... that would mean the only operational SSBNs would be one Borei and some Delta IVs... so I doubt they would be retiring the Delta IVs.

All 3 Boreys in service are officially in comission. In April-May they headed to the sea for exercises. Subs are okay. The problem is with missiles.

The whole purpose of the subs is the missiles so if the missiles are not OK then the Subs are not OK.

If it was real, US MoD and their media arm would be repeating the story a million times now.

The quality of western intel... they might decide that while the Bulava doesn't work (obviously you don't need evidence when you have stereotypes... ie Putin killed both Skripals and the super UK health service brought them back to life, and Iraq has WMDs) it does have WMDs in it so the US needs to invade Russia...

Bulava is notoriously unreliable, half of recent four launches have failed or partially failed. This means that in the case of nuclear war malfunctions would down more missiles than the US ABM. If I was Russian MoD I would be working on Bulava II already. If they manage to make it in the same size as predecessor it will fit in all Boreys. When Trident launch failed in 2016 it didn't take more than a month for UK parliament to vote for construction of a new SSBN class.

verkhoturye51 wrote:Russian media reported that even Dolgoruky doesn't carry any missiles (only for tests).

With all due respect, Russian media presstitutes can be just as fecking useless as their Western corporate MSM counterparts.  Especially foreign-funded 5th columnist media whores...

Maybe you can back up this claim with a link or two and allow us to evaluate the claim?

Bulava failures thru its test program are partly to do with the initially poor condition of Russian SLBM manufacturing, but also because the missile is at least one generation more advanced than the Trident D5 and it has taken awhile to get the design and manufacturing procedures right. It is slightly smaller and a little more than 1/2 the weight of the trident, but its throw weight is higher and its accuracy better. I'm OK with an extended test prgram and the occasional failure (partial or otherwise) as long as it delivers an operational weapon system that is superior to anything the despicable Seppo Continuum can field.

Big_Gazza wrote:

verkhoturye51 wrote:Russian media reported that even Dolgoruky doesn't carry any missiles (only for tests).

With all due respect, Russian media presstitutes can be just as fecking useless as their Western corporate MSM counterparts.  Especially foreign-funded 5th columnist media whores...

Maybe you can back up this claim with a link or two and allow us to evaluate the claim?

This.

We need official sources please before you progress with more rumors and fables.

verkhoturye51 wrote:Bulava is notoriously unreliable, half of recent four launches have failed or partially failed. This means that in the case of nuclear war malfunctions would down more missiles than the US ABM. If I was Russian MoD I would be working on Bulava II already. If they manage to make it in the same size as predecessor it will fit in all Boreys. When Trident launch failed in 2016 it didn't take more than a month for UK parliament to vote for construction of a new SSBN class.

Umm, since last two years the Bulava has been successful launches. And that is the reason for testing too, to make sure that everything is working.

Maybe you don't understand how this stuff works but essentially it was a whole different plant that made Bulava vs Sineva. The company never made submarine launched missiles before. While it had a shoddy start, it is shaping to be a real awesome missile. And like all programs, it requires time, patience and effort (tests) to make sure it works.

And hence why they ordered a total of 10+ boreis - because the Russian MoD knows they have a working system and a good one at that, and while missiles are completing tests and development, they will have working submarines that takes them.

Judging by how often they launched them, sounds like they made a lot of them for testing purposes. Even Tass stated in a series of tests....

miketheterrible wrote:And hence why they ordered a total of 10+ boreis - because the Russian MoD knows they have a working system and a good one at that, and while missiles are completing tests and development, they will have working submarines that takes them.

...and that's game, set and match to MtT.

The thing is that independent sources are sometimes more credible than official. We all know where to find Klimov's article.

miketheterrible wrote:While it had a shoddy start, it is shaping to be a real awesome missile.

Perhaps you should check the history to learn that it had three shoddy starts and three happy "ends". Twice already after accepting the missile in service, new problems appeared. If you solve one problem only to find another it's sometimes better to abort the project. Which is what happened with some derivatives of Bulava, like R-45 and R-47.

Only time will show if all the problems are solved. If that's the case, we can probably expect launches also from Nevsky and Monomakh. Until then, claims that Boreys might not carry any missiles, because they are still running tests, are legitimate doubts. Publishing such criticisms and putting pressure on Ru MoD is a great way to have them prove everything's ok.

you still failed to provide any actual evidence, credible as well.  Please share it rather than "we know were to find it".  Plus you are taking two separate things and somehow comparing them to try and make it sound like they are somehow related, which they are not.  And no, just because someone says something doesn't make it true.  I have heard experts also say US never went to the moon.  I hear a lot of crazy bullshit.  Doesn't make it any more true than the next.  ESPECIALLY when it is 1 person that says it and not actually even verified or multiplied by other experts.

So yes, you can question whatever you want.  Doesn't make you right either.

BTW, check your own sources:

https://sputniknews.com/military/201805251064811612-bulava-missile-development-analysis/

http://tass.com/defense/984308

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/bulava.html

I provided my sources, now provide yours.

Yes, I suggest you stop talking nonsense and wait till later.  They will continue launches.

Or you can go to Russia and tell the MoD and everyone else why they are wrong and some blowhard with no credibility either, is right.  While you are at it, ask the questions to the MoD why their vessels are empty.

I would like to point something else out.

People like you (new members with nothing smart to say and very limited in knowledge) love to jump into a forum, and spread whatever nonsense they want.  I heard it all.  Borei's that carry no missiles, PAK FA that has no internal weapons Bay, No Stealth, Armata with no thermals, etc.  You lots make it sound like Russia is completely, 100% incompetent and has no ability to do anything.  Even though there are videos and proof of their development and capabilities, you guys believe in whatever little nonsense that some "professional" writes.  Doesn't matter if they cannot back up their claim with any evidence of their own.  Oh no.  It just means they are correct and the videos/photos and everything else is wrong.

Give me a break.

Big_Gazza wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:And hence why they ordered a total of 10+ boreis - because the Russian MoD knows they have a working system and a good one at that, and while missiles are completing tests and development, they will have working submarines that takes them.

...and that's game, set and match to MtT.

This guy believes in tin foil hat conspiracies because someone who plowed his mother told him it was true (no photos or videos of course).

verkhoturye51 wrote:The thing is that independent sources are sometimes more credible than official. We all know where to find Klimov's article...........

Sometimes... and sometimes they are pure BS

For example, Vann will gladly post independent sources in order to prove his claim that Earth is flat

It doesn't mean that info is accurate regardless of source's independence

And claims in this particular ''naval'' source are BS, just looking at it makes it obvious as hell

Maybe you don't understand how this stuff works but essentially it was a whole different plant that made Bulava vs Sineva. The company never made submarine launched missiles before. While it had a shoddy start, it is shaping to be a real awesome missile. And like all programs, it requires time, patience and effort (tests) to make sure it works.

Bulava was a rather significant step in technology, so of course there would be problems... they could eliminate the problems by just making a generic non ambitious weapon... the equivalent of them cancelling the Lider and just making some more Sovremmenys with better propulsion.

It would be the same for the Lada class... just cancel and make more Kilos... except that would result in a huge drop in performance because not only are the Ladas a real step forward in performance... now that their problems are sorted out some of the new systems and technology can now be added to upgrades to Kilos to improve their performance too.

A bit like the new missiles for the MiG-29s and Su-27s could be added to MiG-23s and MiG-21s to improve their performance...

Perhaps you should check the history to learn that it had three shoddy starts and three happy "ends". Twice already after accepting the missile in service, new problems appeared. If you solve one problem only to find another it's sometimes better to abort the project. Which is what happened with some derivatives of Bulava, like R-45 and R-47.

Perhaps it all depends on what you mean by development... If you think a new system is developed buy making a test model and firing it and then if it fails randomly picking some change that might fix the problem and then applying that to a new test model and testing it.... then yes... scrap the whole programme and start again... because that will fix any problem their might have been... NOT.

Testing programmes generally examine results and test data to determine what went wrong and then fix that problem and test again.

And it is not just for the missile itself... it needs to be tested in the launch platform and in the environments it will likely be used in as well.

Of course certain fixes might result in other problems surfacing.... but that is hardly a reason to give up development.

A lot of money and time has been invested in this weapon system and it would be bloody stupid to give up now and start from scratch... even just for the reason that that would mean no SLBMs in Russia for the next 10 years while a new missile is developed.

Only time will show if all the problems are solved. If that's the case, we can probably expect launches also from Nevsky and Monomakh. Until then, claims that Boreys might not carry any missiles, because they are still running tests, are legitimate doubts.

They have two Borei class subs in service. You are claiming they are not launching missiles because they can't... if they can't launch missiles WTF would they be buying more for?

Why keep sending them on patrol?

How can you prove any Trident carrying sub in the west actually has any missiles on board... they don't actually launch any either.

Next time you are near a Russian soldier go up and punch him in the face... it will tell you if his gun is loaded or not.

Publishing such criticisms and putting pressure on Ru MoD is a great way to have them prove everything's ok.

Publishing bullshit plays into the hands of western trolls who will republish the original biased bullshit, and ignore any rebuttals the MOD might publish in response.

People like you (new members with nothing smart to say and very limited in knowledge) love to jump into a forum, and spread whatever nonsense they want. I heard it all. Borei's that carry no missiles, PAK FA that has no internal weapons Bay, No Stealth, Armata with no thermals, etc. You lots make it sound like Russia is completely, 100% incompetent and has no ability to do anything. Even though there are videos and proof of their development and capabilities, you guys believe in whatever little nonsense that some "professional" writes. Doesn't matter if they cannot back up their claim with any evidence of their own. Oh no. It just means they are correct and the videos/photos and everything else is wrong.

Give me a break.

I have come across people who claim the Soviets didn't shoot down any German aircraft because there is no gun camera footage to prove it... would be amusing if it wasn't so sad and disrespectful.

It doesn't mean that info is accurate regardless of source's independence

I am not paid by western or Russian governments so I must be independent too...