Since Sineva works fine and been tested countless of times, it's better to upgrade remaining vessels to use Sineva and get rid of those old 1970's models.
I totally agree... liquid propellants are still more powerful than solid fuels and both are enormous fire risks... being solid fuelled doesn't make it safe... SS-N-20s have been dropped during loading and it burst into flames just like a liquid propellent missile would, and in terms of the environment both spew out toxic fumes on launch, and huge nuclear fireballs when they hit so all round both are bad for the environment.
The liquid propellants they use are stable for decades... and I rather suspect solid fuel rockets don't age any better.
Sineva and Layner are very great missiles. Only though demand is in solid fuel due to not having to fill the missile to use or store liquid when not in use.
As far as I know these SLBMs are loaded with fuel in the factory and throughout their service lives are not defuelled... just like a solid fuelled model.
But these older SSBNs... Delta 3s and Delta 4s are not really quiet enough for front line use in WWIII... what I think would be a good use for them is to replace old missiles like the SS-N-18 with these unlimited range cruise missiles... which should be shorter than the SS-N-18s so you could reduce the profile of the subs which should make them smaller and lighter and quieter and faster... with a high level of automation the crew could be tiny with a large number of missiles with unlimited range that could be launched from anywhere.
From the western perspective you would need to chase them all over the world and all those conventionally powered ASW ships you saved money buying will now be in trouble... imagine a modified Delta III zipping around at 20knots all the time... not like they will run out of fuel... but those trying to chase them in conventional boats will burn through the fuel... even better when WWIII starts and it turns out they don't even have any missiles on board. Once a month for two or three weeks it could slow down and be quiet and sneaky and hard to find, and then back up to racing around...
Of course the real missiles could be located in the middle of Russia where the west can't touch them until they are launched and they could fly in any direction.
Later models of the nuclear powered cruise missile could use ramjet propulsion but because no combustion actually takes place it would be the equivalent of a scramjet with only heat and shape speed limits and working with mach 27 reentry vehicles and hypersonic scramjet powered missiles new materials and shapes will already be being developed anyway.
Rocket launch in Russia and a spiral climb to 80km altitude and then fly south at mach 10 and accelerating over the south pole to come up on the US from the south... releasing warheads over various targets it flys over... you could then command it to descend to low altitude and fly around at 50m altitude at mach 3 or mach 4.... where the shockwave would be lethal and do damage to things on the ground.... for the next few years or until it flys in to something.
IIRC Ryazan was overhauled recently (2016?) but she would be the last boat to carry the older R-29R.
She is the last Delta III in service as an SSBN at the moment... one D3 was repurposed as a support sub for mini subs... maybe it is time for them to do the same with the others they have. I remember they kept the Yankee class in service by converting them from SSBNs to SSNs, but that was an extreme measure because the nuclear power plants on the older model subs were not good.... the Hotel, Echo, and November subs had rather bad reactors... the Yankees were better but still not great because they were rushed.
They don't have an urgent need for new SSNs, but some sort of arsenal sub design might be interesting... they wouldn't need to be stealthy... just full of UKSK-M launch tubes and unlimited range at high speed with nuclear propulsion.