Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Share

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2515
    Points : 2648
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  kvs on Sat Aug 20, 2016 12:45 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:Interestingly, some fuktard pro-establishment wikiwhore has been tampering with the Wikipedia RSM-56/Bulava page and has been spiking the launch history descriptions.  Apparently any test where warheads "hit unsuccessfully"  (WTF does that mean, and how would he know?) is now considered a FAILURE.  Apparently having a warhead land outside of its nominal CEP envelope means that the entire launch is a complete failure and its back to the books for the incompetent drunken Ruskie missile designers....  Never mind the other warheads that landed on target and bathed the hypothetical Yankistani city in a flash of hard radiation before sweeping it away in an incandescent pressure wave of billion-degree hypersonically-expanding plasma.  Yeah, that sounds like an abject failure to me....

    russia

    One of the little details all of this Bulava and Russia bashing misses is that the USSR considered 20 successful test launches as minimum for
    certification. Post 1991 Russia was bankrupt and tried to save some money on the testing phase.

    http://russianforces.org/navy/slbms/bulava.shtml

    There have been 25 launches between September 27, 2005 and November 14, 2015 of which 9 have been failures. So another 4 successful tests
    need to be conducted to reach 20. From the above it is also clear that 8 out 9 failures predate 2010. That is, the bugs are being worked out
    and there is simply no indication that this is a failed design that needs to be abandoned.

    Tsavo Lion
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 34
    Points : 36
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Aug 20, 2016 8:42 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:I agree, if only partially. This is their 1st solid-fueled SLBM, & it's based on Topol ICBM. It was done to save $ & shorten development time. From now on, if I see their problem-free trials & patrols before the last Borey-class sub armed with the Bulava is decommissioned, I'll believe it!

    No, thats not true.  The R-39/SS-N-20 carried by the Pr 941 Akula SSBBNs was a solid-fuelled SLBM.  Also the RSM-56 is not based on Topol ICBM simply because both are designed by the same bureau (MITT).  You make such simple errors of fact, and expect us to accept your hysterical worse-case scenarios?  FFS... I don't know why I am even wasting time in arguing with a troll...

    Well, thanks for that! But, the R-39 had a three-stage solid-fuel boost design with a liquid-fuel post-boost unit carrying up to 10 warheads; the RSM-56 Bulava too has 3 stages; the 1st and 2nd use solid fuel, while the 3rd stage still uses a liquid fuel for high maneuverability during warhead separation.  The Chinese JL-2, is a 3-stage, solid-fuelled missile. The US Trident II is a 3-stage, each stage containing a Solid-fuel rocket motor. So, to me, (call me whatever u want!), all other things being equal, mixing solid & liquid fuels in the same missile doesn't sound as safe as having all stages with solid fuel.
    GarryB wrote:No land attack cruise missile in service has the range to replace Bulava.
    - I know, but such conversions been done before on subs with years of life remaining in them, both by USSR & USA: 4 Yankee Notch & 16 Yankee Is to SSNs, 1 Yankee to SSGN, 1 Yankee Stretch to a carrier for Paltus mini-subs, & finally, the 4 oldest USN Ohio SSBNs to SSGNs.

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 507
    Points : 531
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Aug 21, 2016 9:39 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Well, thanks for that! But, the R-39 had a three-stage solid-fuel boost design with a liquid-fuel post-boost unit carrying up to 10 warheads; the RSM-56 Bulava too has 3 stages; the 1st and 2nd use solid fuel, while the 3rd stage still uses a liquid fuel for high maneuverability during warhead separation.  The Chinese JL-2, is a 3-stage, solid-fuelled missile. The US Trident II is a 3-stage, each stage containing a Solid-fuel rocket motor. So, to me, (call me whatever u want!), all other things being equal, mixing solid & liquid fuels in the same missile doesn't sound as safe as having all stages with solid fuel.

    Liquid-fuelled stages have several advantages, but the main one for an ICBM is that it is throttle-able. Solids have a pre-determined burn rate so their trajectories can be determined accurately once their thrust vs time characteristics are know. Bulava has a throttle-able final stage so has greater ability to shape its final trajectory than an all-solid missile such as a Trident D5. Bulava therefore poses problems for ABM systems, especially for those that rely on exo-atmospheric engagements where incoming missile trajectory needs to be known precisely in order to compute an intercept as the interceptor is expending its energy climbing out of the gravity well and has limited capability to make large trajectory changes (as the lack of air for aerodynamic control surfaces forces it to use motor power for all course changes).

    Additionally, liquid fuels are more energetic than solids (higher ISP), and delivers better throw-weight performance for a given mass.

    Russian SLBM engineers are using liquid upper stages for very good reasons.....

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 21, 2016 11:39 am

    - I know, but such conversions been done before on subs with years of life remaining in them, both by USSR & USA: 4 Yankee Notch & 16 Yankee Is to SSNs, 1 Yankee to SSGN, 1 Yankee Stretch to a carrier for Paltus mini-subs, & finally, the 4 oldest USN Ohio SSBNs to SSGNs.

    They were not practical attempts to replace SLBMs with cruise missiles... generally they were to remove the former SSBN from the list of strategic weapons platforms and to test the concept of heavy cruise missile carriers.

    For the Russians a modern SSGN makes rather more sense and is significantly more potent because modern cruise missiles not only can have a much greater range, but their increased terminal accuracy means conventional warheads can be used making them much more usable.

    However as a replacement for SLBMs they lack speed and are rather too interceptable except from a bomber.

    (ie as a first strike launched from the Pacific or Atlantic going up against a fully operational air defence system a lot would be shot down, whereas after the first strike by ICBMs the cruise missiles released by strategic bombers 6-8 hours will have passed and most airfields and HQs and air defence systems will be in tatters when the cruise missiles start exploding...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Tsavo Lion
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 34
    Points : 36
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:03 pm

    I never implied that SLCMs are = or can replace SLBMs! But converting still useful SSBNs to SSNs/GNs/special purpose is cheaper than building more of those classes!

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 23, 2016 3:05 am

    It is not cheaper if you have no need for the resulting vessels.

    It would be more valuable to convert old SSBNs into "research vessels" and mother ships and test ships.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Tsavo Lion
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 34
    Points : 36
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:58 pm

    GarryB wrote:It is not cheaper if you have no need for the resulting vessels. It would be more valuable to convert old SSBNs into "research vessels" and mother ships and test ships.

    Well, they needed & used them for a few years; the USN still uses all 4 SSGNs. I won't be surprised if more of its SSBNs r converted for all of the above roles. They could be used as UAV carriers as well! http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ssgn-tactical-trident-subs-special-forces-and-super-strike-01764/
    Combined, the four SSGNs represent more than half of the Submarine Force's vertical launch payload capacity with each SSGN capable of carrying up to 154 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles. The missiles are loaded in seven-shot Multiple-All-Up-Round Canisters (MACs) in up to 22 missile tubes. These missile tubes can also accommodate additional stowage canisters for SOF equipment, food, and other consumables to extend the submarines' ability to remain forward deployed in support of combatant commanders' tasking. The missile tubes are also able to accommodate future payloads such as new types of missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and unmanned undersea vehicles. The SSGNs have the capacity to host up to 66 SOF personnel at a time. Additional berthing was installed in the missile compartment to accommodate the added personnel, and other measures have been taken to extend the amount of time that the SOF forces can spend deployed aboard the SSGNs. The two forward most missile tubes were permanently converted to lock-out chambers that allow clandestine insertion and retrieval of SOF personnel. Each lock-out chamber can also accommodate a Dry Deck Shelter (DDS), enhancing the SSGNs' SOF capabilities.
    During conversion, each SSGN received the Common Submarine Radio Room and two High-Data-Rate antennas for significantly enhanced communication capabilities. These additions allow each SSGN to serve as a forward-deployed, clandestine Small Combatant Joint Command Center. The SSGN is a key element of the Navy's future fighting force. With its tremendous payload capacity, dual crew deployment concept, and inherent stealth, each SSGN brings mission flexibility and enhanced capabilities to the warfighter. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4100&tid=300&ct=4

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:31 am

    The main problem is that an SSBN is designed for very different missions compared with an SSGN.

    An SSGN is pretty much an attack sub and in the Soviet/Russian Navy that means it is a carrier hunter like an Oscar.

    A converted SSBN on the other hand will have rather more capacity for weapons, but will be optimised for slow speed hiding operations... not hunting carriers.

    The waters are muddied by the fact that generally Soviet and Russian SSGNs previously had no land attack capability so a Russian SSGN was an anti ship system, but now with land attack as well as anti ship and anti sub weapons able to be launched from the UKSK systems they suddenly become multi role vessels with wider capabilities.

    As shown by their experience in Syria some times it is useful to have a platform able to carry a large number of land attack cruise missiles.

    Quite a few Corvettes and strategic cruise missile carrying aircraft were used for a large number of attacks but having a converted SSBN able to carry 30 or 40 UKSK launchers for 240-320 misiles you could wage a war on your own... and with 5,000km range missiles you could be fairly flexible as to where you attack from...

    Of course as all Russian naval surface vessels will have UKSK launchers then the need for such a vessel is not so critical.

    Desirable, but not critical.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 507
    Points : 531
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sat Aug 27, 2016 1:24 pm

    I'd be interested in knowing what studies Russia has done on modifing the Pr 941 Akula SSBNs to carry Kalibre and Oniks. The SS-N-20/R-39 was a BIG missile, and their launch tubes could probably hold 5 of the smaller cruise missiles. No need for hugely expensive rebuilds, just insert an adaptor module into the existing launch tube, rework the wiring interfaces and replace the R-39 related support electronics. With a relatively small outlay (compared to a new sub), you could have a SSGN with ~100 missiles.

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Singular_trafo on Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:00 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:I'd be interested in knowing what studies Russia has done on modifing the Pr 941 Akula SSBNs to carry Kalibre and Oniks. The SS-N-20/R-39 was a BIG missile, and their launch tubes could probably hold 5 of the smaller cruise missiles. No need for hugely expensive rebuilds, just insert an adaptor module into the existing launch tube, rework the wiring interfaces and replace the R-39 related support electronics. With a relatively small outlay (compared to a new sub), you could have a SSGN with ~100 missiles.


    You have to refurbish the submarine as well.

    That cost waaaaaay more than a new SSBN.

    Tsavo Lion
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 34
    Points : 36
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:40 am

    GarryB wrote: and with 5,000km range missiles you could be fairly flexible as to where you attack from...
    Of course as all Russian naval surface vessels will have UKSK launchers then the need for such a vessel is not so critical. Desirable, but not critical.
    Is there a CM anywhere with 5,000km range, 2x that of Kalibr? ttp://sputniknews.com/russia/20151012/1028390749/russia-kalibr-missile.html
    Since they lost the Oscar II SSGN Kursk, if 1-2 SSBNs available for conversion, why not? They r not known to decommission their platforms as easily & often as the USN does!

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:26 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    GarryB wrote: and with 5,000km range missiles you could be fairly flexible as to where you attack from...
    Of course as all Russian naval surface vessels will have UKSK launchers then the need for such a vessel is not so critical. Desirable, but not critical.
    Is there a CM anywhere with 5,000km range, 2x that of Kalibr? ttp://sputniknews.com/russia/20151012/1028390749/russia-kalibr-missile.html
    Since they lost the Oscar II SSGN Kursk, if 1-2 SSBNs available for conversion, why not? They r not known to decommission their platforms as easily & often as the USN does!

    Well there's Kh-101/102 which have 5,500 km range, but they're strictly air launched...but it's not impossible to modify the 3m-14 Kalibr's with conforming fuel tanks.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:43 am

    Is there a CM anywhere with 5,000km range, 2x that of Kalibr?

    Kh-101 and Kh-102.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:15 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Is there a CM anywhere with 5,000km range, 2x that of Kalibr?

    Kh-101 and Kh-102.

    ...As far as range is concerned, cruise missiles range could easily be 4x higher than that, but has major drawback with the exponential increase in cost. For example, modern HALE could just as easily play the role of a cruise missile, the RQ-4 Global Hawk HALE UAS has a max range of 22,000 km's, and nothing real stops the U.S. airforce from attaching a tactical thermonuclear warhead on one (which makes you wonder why the INF treaty doesn't cover drones)...but there is massive downside, where talking about white-elephant expensive here...like +$130 million a piece!

    Speaking about the INF treaty, looks like drones are a loopwhole around the damn thing lol!

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 507
    Points : 531
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:26 am

    Singular_trafo wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:I'd be interested in knowing what studies Russia has done on modifing the Pr 941 Akula SSBNs to carry Kalibre and Oniks.  The SS-N-20/R-39 was a BIG missile, and their launch tubes could probably hold 5 of the smaller cruise missiles.  No need for hugely expensive rebuilds, just insert an adaptor module into the existing launch tube, rework the wiring interfaces and replace the R-39 related support electronics.  With a relatively small outlay (compared to a new sub), you could have a SSGN with ~100 missiles.

    You have to refurbish the submarine as well.

    That cost waaaaaay more than a new SSBN.

    Really? Why exactly would that be? The TK-208 Donskoi is currently active as a Bulava testbed, so what refurbishment would be required to convert her to a SSGN following the planned Bulava II development trials? As long as her reactor, fuel reserve and propulsion train are sound, and her general marine, life support and accomodation systems are in working condition, what exactly is needed? Is there any publically-available account, or is this just opinion?

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Singular_trafo on Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:29 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:I'd be interested in knowing what studies Russia has done on modifing the Pr 941 Akula SSBNs to carry Kalibre and Oniks.  The SS-N-20/R-39 was a BIG missile, and their launch tubes could probably hold 5 of the smaller cruise missiles.  No need for hugely expensive rebuilds, just insert an adaptor module into the existing launch tube, rework the wiring interfaces and replace the R-39 related support electronics.  With a relatively small outlay (compared to a new sub), you could have a SSGN with ~100 missiles.

    You have to refurbish the submarine as well.

    That cost waaaaaay more than a new SSBN.

    Really? Why exactly would that be? The TK-208 Donskoi is currently active as a Bulava testbed, so what refurbishment would be required to convert her to a SSGN following the planned Bulava II development trials? As long as her reactor, fuel reserve and propulsion train are sound, and her general marine, life support and accomodation systems are in working condition, what exactly is needed? Is there any publically-available account, or is this just opinion?


    I read same time before that the reason of the Pr.941 scraping is the extremly high cost of refurbishment.

    It cost less to make a new submarine thatn to refurbish one 941.


    It is supported by the simple fact the russian navy scraping the 941s, instead to refurbish them.

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 507
    Points : 531
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Big_Gazza on Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:53 am

    Singular_trafo wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:I'd be interested in knowing what studies Russia has done on modifing the Pr 941 Akula SSBNs to carry Kalibre and Oniks.  The SS-N-20/R-39 was a BIG missile, and their launch tubes could probably hold 5 of the smaller cruise missiles.  No need for hugely expensive rebuilds, just insert an adaptor module into the existing launch tube, rework the wiring interfaces and replace the R-39 related support electronics.  With a relatively small outlay (compared to a new sub), you could have a SSGN with ~100 missiles.

    You have to refurbish the submarine as well.

    That cost waaaaaay more than a new SSBN.

    Really?  Why exactly would that be?  The TK-208 Donskoi is currently active as a Bulava testbed, so what refurbishment would be required to convert her to a SSGN following the planned Bulava II development trials?  As long as her reactor, fuel reserve and propulsion train are sound, and her general marine, life support and accomodation systems are in working condition, what exactly is needed?   Is there any publically-available account, or is this just opinion?


    I read same time before that the reason of the Pr.941 scraping is the extremly high cost of refurbishment.

    It cost less to make a new submarine thatn to refurbish one 941.


    It is supported by the simple fact the russian navy scraping the 941s, instead to refurbish them.

    The 3x 941s which have been scrapped were done so as part of the Nunn-Lugar "De-fanging Defeated Russia" program, and its likely that Russia chose those hulls that were in the worst condition. Without hard data its not possible to tell on the condition of TK-17 & TK-20. If these vessels are hooked up to an active impressed current cathodic protection and have been nitrogen purged they can be preserved for decades without significant deterioration, and be available for refurb and modernisation when the will (and funds) become available. IMHO this is exactly why these subs have not been sent to the knackers yard - to allow the RuN to keep its future options open (and the same applies to the Pr 1144 Lazarev and Ushakov nuke cruisers)

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 29, 2016 10:13 am

    Speaking about the INF treaty, looks like drones are a loopwhole around the damn thing lol!

    Not a loophole at all.

    If they take off from a land based runway then they are ground launched, so any UAV or UCAV with a range of more than 500km and less than 5,000km is banned under the INF treaty.

    With a range of more than 5,500km a UCAV is classified as a strategic nuclear weapon and subject to new START limits.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Singular_trafo on Mon Aug 29, 2016 5:36 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:I'd be interested in knowing what studies Russia has done on modifing the Pr 941 Akula SSBNs to carry Kalibre and Oniks.  The SS-N-20/R-39 was a BIG missile, and their launch tubes could probably hold 5 of the smaller cruise missiles.  No need for hugely expensive rebuilds, just insert an adaptor module into the existing launch tube, rework the wiring interfaces and replace the R-39 related support electronics.  With a relatively small outlay (compared to a new sub), you could have a SSGN with ~100 missiles.

    You have to refurbish the submarine as well.

    That cost waaaaaay more than a new SSBN.

    Really?  Why exactly would that be?  The TK-208 Donskoi is currently active as a Bulava testbed, so what refurbishment would be required to convert her to a SSGN following the planned Bulava II development trials?  As long as her reactor, fuel reserve and propulsion train are sound, and her general marine, life support and accomodation systems are in working condition, what exactly is needed?   Is there any publically-available account, or is this just opinion?


    I read same time before that the reason of the Pr.941 scraping is the extremly high cost of refurbishment.

    It cost less to make a new submarine thatn to refurbish one 941.


    It is supported by the simple fact the russian navy scraping the 941s, instead to refurbish them.

    The 3x 941s which have been scrapped were done so as part of the Nunn-Lugar "De-fanging Defeated Russia" program, and its likely that Russia chose those hulls that were in the worst condition. Without hard data its not possible to tell on the condition of TK-17 & TK-20. If these vessels are hooked up to an active impressed current cathodic protection and have been nitrogen purged they can be preserved for decades without significant deterioration, and be available for refurb and modernisation when the will (and funds) become available. IMHO this is exactly why these subs have not been sent to the knackers yard - to allow the RuN to keep its future options open (and the same applies to the Pr 1144 Lazarev and Ushakov nuke cruisers)


    The 941 is a monster, composited from three independent hull.

    Two of them has everything , reactor + propulsion, third is only for humans.

    So, the cost of a 941 should be around 2.5 times more than a normal submarine.

    If the refurbishment cost is half a new submarine then you have more cost to bring back to service a 941 than if you build a brand new ship from scratch.

    This was the reason why russia doesn't want them.

    Tsavo Lion
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 34
    Points : 36
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Aug 29, 2016 10:54 pm

    True, & the D. Donskoi was retained for testing BMs (probably not only the Bulava, but other types as well) because there r 20 tubes, strong hulls, & the fact that active SSBNs r being modernized & needed for patrol duty.
    The Delta IV SSBNs, which are based in the Northern Fleet, are each armed with 16 SS-N-23 Sineva missiles carrying four warheads per missile. They entered service in the mid-1980s and are gradually being overhauled in order to extend their lifespan by an additional ten years. The oldest submarines will be decommissioned in 2019 and the last of the class is expected to be retired by 2025. Because of the overhaul schedule, in recent years, between six and seven strategic submarines were on active duty at any one time. https://russiamil.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/the-modernization-of-russias-nuclear-submarine-forces/

    As for Borey & Oscar classes,
    The ship’s antisubmarine warfare capabilities are also impressive. The SSBN boasts six torpedo tubes for launching six RPK-2 Viyuga (SS-N-15) missiles. “Each SS-N-15 is capable of carrying a payload of a Type 40 torpedo or 90R nuclear depth charge. The missile can strike enemy submarines within a range of 45 km, while travelling at a subsonic speed of Mach 0.9,”according to naval-technology.com. http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/putins-red-october-russias-deadliest-new-submarine/ Irkutsk , Chelyabinsk , and Tver will become known as Project 949AM submarines after modernisation work is completed. Along with improved acoustic, electronic, navigation and communications systems, Project 949AM submarines are understood to be receiving NPO Mashinostroyeniya 3M55 Oniks (SS-N-26 'Strobile') anti-ship cruise missiles to replace their 3M45 Granit (SS-N-19 'Shipwreck') missiles. http://www.janes.com/article/54981/russia-details-ambitious-effort-to-modernise-nuclear-powered-submarines-to-bolster-order-of-battle http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/10/russia-submarine-boost/
    In case some r converted to SSN/GN, or should I say multipurpose submarines, to avoid prohibitively high costs, their missile compartments may be re-purposed for storage,etc. & their CMs could be fired from torpedo tubes.

    Project Canada
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 529
    Points : 538
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Project Canada on Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:46 pm

    Reports of Failed bulava launch...,




    Launched from a submarine "Bulava" self-destructed in flight

    Launched from a submarine "Bulava" self-destructed in flight
    One of two of the ballistic missile "Bulava", issued a submarine of strategic purpose "Yury Dolgoruky" in the White Sea to Kamchatka Kura test site, self-destructed
    September 27, 2016, 21:37
    This was reported on Tuesday, 27 September, TASS reported with reference to the press service of the Defense Ministry.

    Experimental volley firing two rockets from a submerged position was made on 27 September. Both missiles as highlighted in the Defense Ministry, "nominally came from the mines of the submarine to the desired path." Fighting first missile unit, performing the complete cycle of the flight program, successfully hit the target at the site.

    "The second rocket after the first stage of a mission self-destructed", - reported in the Defense Ministry, without specifying the reasons.
    November 14, 2015 the Ministry of Defense reported that the ballistic missile submarine of the Northern Fleet, "Vladimir Monomakh" made a successful salvo firing two missiles "Bulava" from the White Sea to the Kura test site in Kamchatka. However, on November 19, sources close to the military authorities, reported "Lente.ru" that one of the two launches of ICBMs could not hit the intended target. The reason was the damage she had received at the start.

    R-30 "Bulava" - solid-fuel intercontinental missile sea-based. Its development began in Russia in the late 1990s. The missile is designed to equip new strategic submarines of Project 955 "Borey".

    "Yury Dolgoruky" - strategic nuclear head 955 "Borey" submarine project. Submarine was laid down in 1996 and launched in February of 2008. He joined the Naval Fleet of Russia January 10, 2013 /

    https://defence.ru/vmc/zapuschennaya-s-podlodki-bulava-samolikvidirovalas-v-polete/


    Project Canada
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 529
    Points : 538
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Project Canada on Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:16 pm



    Russian nuclear sub test-fired 2 Bulava missiles from White Sea


    One of the missiles self-liquidated after the first stage of the flight program


    MOSCOW, September 27. /TASS/. The Yuri Dolgoruky nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine has conducted an experimental launch of two Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles from the White Sea, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Tuesday.
    "Today, on September 27, the Yuri Dolgoruky strategic nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine conducted experimental launches of two Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles from the White Sea to the Kura firing range on the Kamchatka Peninsula," the ministry said. "Both missiles were fired from the submarine’s silos in a routine regime. The first missile’s warhead completed the entire cycle of the flight program and successfully hit the designated targets at the firing range. The second missile self-liquidated after the first stage of the flight program."
    The missiles was fired from the submerged submarine.

    The lead Borei-class submarine of Project 955 - Yuri Dolgoruky - was delivered to the Russian Navy in January 2013, however, the boat was commissioned with the Navy combat forces only in 2014. The Yuri Dolgoruky submarine is in service with the Northern Fleet. The Yuri Dolgoruky is 160 meters long and 13 meters wide, with a displacement of 24,000 tonnes. The Project 955 nuclear-powered submarine is armed with the advanced R-30 Bulava missile system with a flight range of more than 8,000 kilometers (4,971 miles). The system is furnished with multiple individually-targeted reentry vehicles.

    Each Project 955 nuclear-powered submarine can carry 16 solid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missiles.

    A multiple launch of two Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles was last performed by the nuclear-powered submarine Vladimir Monomakh on November 14, 2015.


    http://tass.com/defense/902632


    Self-liquidated?, is that a soft term to describe a malfunction that resulted to failure? Or is it intentional? The way they describe the results for the 2nd missile is odd.

    TheRealist
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 79
    Points : 113
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  TheRealist on Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:33 pm

    I think this is the reason why the Ministry of Defense gave an R&D contract to the Makeyev Design Bureau to design a new SLBM, given that Bulava is experiencing some "gremlins" in the system. I think they should accelerate the replacement program.

    I remember reading from Flot.com about an announcement by Yuri Solomonov that MITT is developing their own replacement of the Bulava some months ago.

    AK-Rex
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 41
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2015-12-22

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  AK-Rex on Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:41 pm

    Success reported in salvo Bulava launch from Yuri Dolgorukiy



    On September 27, 2016 the Yuri Dolgorukiy submarine of the Project 955 Borey class conducted a salvo launch of two Bulava missiles. The missiles were launched from a submerged submarine deployed in the White Sea. According to the official statement, the launch was fully successful. Warheads of the first missile reached their targets on the Kura test site. The second missile self destroyed "after completing the first phase of the flight".

    The ministry of defense called the launch "experimental," but the nature of the experiment is not clear. One report quotes former chief of the Navy Main Staff as saying that the launch was supposed to check the readiness of the strategic fleet, so maybe the experiment checked the command and control procedures. But it's just a guess.

    The destruction of the missile shortly after launch is unlikely to be the experiment in question. This appears to be a normal practice in salvo launches - at the very least it saves money, since the missile probably carries mockups instead of working upper stages and warehads. Indeed, this is probably what happened in the previous salvo launch, in November 2015 -- there were reports about destruction of one missile. These reports were probably right, but it was wrong to conclude (as I did) that it was a failure.

    This launch has its own history. The previous one, in November 2015, conducted by Vladimir Monomakh, was reported to be not entirely successful. There were reports that suggested that the missile that flew to Kura was damaged as it was leaving the launch tube and as a result its warheads missed the targets (we may note that reports about today's launch emphasized that "both missiles left their tubes and followed the assigned trajectories"). Then, there was a report that Vladimir Monomakh will make another attempt in June 2016, before leaving to the Pacific. However, it has left without a launch.


    Source

    zg18
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 869
    Points : 945
    Join date : 2013-09-26
    Location : Zagreb , Croatia

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  zg18 on Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:13 pm

    Bulava salvo launch





    Sponsored content

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:37 pm


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:37 pm