Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Share
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2359
    Points : 2373
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:20 pm

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

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

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

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


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

    Posts : 2105
    Points : 2101
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:22 pm

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

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

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

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


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

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

    Posts : 2359
    Points : 2373
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:24 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


    Last edited by KiloGolf on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2105
    Points : 2101
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:25 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Last edited by miketheterrible on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 395
    Points : 395
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:26 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:But in any case. 4 boats = 1 in the water, patrolling.
    Think of warheads per patrolling boat, not overall. Add the possibility of one boat being on standby and that's it.
    Even those not on patrol -i.e. in port or exercising can still
    hit most of USA from their bases, in the Arctic & NE Pacific, just like the road mobile Topol ICBMs that can do it through opened roofs w/o leaving their garages! And I suspect they don't unload all of their BMs while inport for that very reason & to save $ on those boring patrols.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:42 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2359
    Points : 2373
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:28 pm

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

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

    Posts : 931
    Points : 935
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:29 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:
    Arrow wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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



    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2105
    Points : 2101
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:29 pm

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

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

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

    Posts : 2359
    Points : 2373
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:30 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:But in any case. 4 boats = 1 in the water, patrolling.
    Think of warheads per patrolling boat, not overall. Add the possibility of one boat being on standby and that's it.
    Those not on patrol &/ in maintenance-i.e. in port or exercising can still
    hit most of USA from their bases & both in the Arctic & NE Pacific, just like road mobile Topol ICBMs that can do w/o leaving their garages.  

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

    Posts : 2359
    Points : 2373
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:31 pm

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 2105
    Points : 2101
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:35 pm

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 6403
    Points : 6505
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:36 pm

    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.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 395
    Points : 395
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:41 pm

    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!
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2359
    Points : 2373
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:42 pm

    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.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2359
    Points : 2373
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:48 pm

    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).
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 395
    Points : 395
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:49 pm

    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?


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:05 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6403
    Points : 6505
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:56 pm

    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

    Posts : 178
    Points : 178
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  Arrow on Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:13 pm

    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.


    Bulava carries between 6 - 10 warheads wrote:

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

    Posts : 2884
    Points : 2920
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  franco on Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:21 pm

    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.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1073
    Points : 1087
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:17 am

    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.     Sleep

    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  Very Happy ) 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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17690
    Points : 18286
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:27 am

    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.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2194
    Points : 2238
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:13 am

    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?
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 931
    Points : 935
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:33 am

    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.     Sleep

    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  Very Happy ) 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.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6403
    Points : 6505
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:15 am

    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.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3630
    Points : 3753
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  kvs on Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:33 am

    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.     Sleep

    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  Very Happy ) 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.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Project 955: Borei class SSBN

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:26 pm