Sineva (R-29RMU) SLBM

Why idiotic?

Liquid fuelled engines are more powerful than solid fuelled engines and solid rocket fuel is very very expensive. Both can be stored for the life time of the weapon, so in actual fact solid fuelled rockets don't have much in the way of advantages.

The liquid fuelled rockets can be throttled up or down when needed and are therefore likely to be rather more efficient and flexible than solid fuelled rockets which burn at a fixed rate for a determined length of time that can't be changed... once started they don't stop till they are out of fuel...

They need to exceed the specs of the Trident II. The Bulava is smaller and the Russian nuclear SLBM subs do not have 24 tubes.

Not really... they will have targets they need to reach and requirements that didn't exist when Bulava was developed... being able to launch a missile at a target going the other way around the planet might be a new requirement for example or being able to carry multiple glider warheads to defeat ABM systems which were not possible options when the Bulava was being developed because of START II and the ABM Treaty... missiles entering earth orbit are considered fractional orbital bombardment systems (like SS-9), but now with nothing replacing new START all bets are off...

GarryB wrote:Why idiotic?

Liquid fuelled engines are more powerful than solid fuelled engines and solid rocket fuel is very very expensive. Both can be stored for the life time of the weapon, so in actual fact solid fuelled rockets don't have much in the way of advantages.

The liquid fuelled rockets can be throttled up or down when needed and are therefore likely to be rather more efficient and flexible than solid fuelled rockets which burn at a fixed rate for a determined length of time that can't be changed... once started they don't stop till they are out of fuel...

They need to exceed the specs of the Trident II. The Bulava is smaller and the Russian nuclear SLBM subs do not have 24 tubes.

Not really... they will have targets they need to reach and requirements that didn't exist when Bulava was developed... being able to launch a missile at a target going the other way around the planet might be a new requirement for example or being able to carry multiple glider warheads to defeat ABM systems which were not possible options when the Bulava was being developed because of START II and the ABM Treaty... missiles entering earth orbit are considered fractional orbital bombardment systems (like SS-9), but now with nothing replacing new START all bets are off...

Greater range, throw weight and greater number of deployed missiles are invariant advantages. Arguing they have no meaning is like
saying that sticks and stones are good enough in the face of Maxim guns.

It is ironic that the country that fields the most powerful land based ICBM can't even match the number of SLBMs deployed by the USA
and has a weaker variant. The deciders who chose 16 tubes instead of 20 for Russian strategic nuclear submarines must have been
subconsciously sabotaging Russian interests at the very least. Putting more tubes in a large submarine is almost a no brainer.
But as it stands, ignoring the differences in SLBMs, every 10 Ohio subs are worth 15 Russian subs of the same category. Russia's
strategic nuclear submarine fleet numbers are not so large as to justify such a large gap.

Inform the Americans that they too are sabotaging themselves, Columbia has 16 tubes.

Greater range, throw weight and greater number of deployed missiles are invariant advantages. Arguing they have no meaning is like
saying that sticks and stones are good enough in the face of Maxim guns.

Liquid fuelled rocket engines are more powerful, which makes better range, better throw weight, and increased warhead payloads easier to achieve.

I am not saying such things don't have meaning, what I am saying is that Bulava was design to do a job... has that job changed?

Russian ports have not moved further away from their targets in the US, so I suspect it is more likely they want more warheads, or different glider warheads, or perhaps... as I said... for their warheads to head in the opposite direction and instead of coming at the US over the north pole, to come over the south pole by entering earth orbit and then deorbiting... something that was previously not allowed because of the ABM treaty that covered anti satellite weapons and anti ballistic missiles and of course fractional orbital bombardment systems... but that treaty was ripped up by the US...

It is ironic that the country that fields the most powerful land based ICBM can't even match the number of SLBMs deployed by the USA
and has a weaker variant.

Not ironic at all... once the silos are built they are much easier to defend and much cheaper to operate than any sub, and together with mobile truck based systems and perhaps rail mounted systems they are just as elusive... and require very little launch warning to get their missiles in the air.

The deciders who chose 16 tubes instead of 20 for Russian strategic nuclear submarines must have been
subconsciously sabotaging Russian interests at the very least. Putting more tubes in a large submarine is almost a no brainer.

Right now, you are correct, but when these vessels were designed there was such a thing as START II in place, and then New START which limited each side to 1,550 warheads... having 20 missiles in each sub just means you are allowed fewer subs... how is that a good thing?

Having really really big subs is not a great idea... the Akula SSBNs were unique and their ability to surface through 3m of ice and their high freeboard meaning when surfaced there wasn't really much hanging under the ice for a torpedo to hit... for most ice more than 3/4s is under water with bits hanging down making torpedo shots even less effective over any distance.

But Akulas are expensive and huge... Borei is much smaller and just as deadly... with START II gone they could adapt the Bulava to carry enormous numbers of warheads in a fractional orbital bombardment flight profile that could attack the US from any direction...

But as it stands, ignoring the differences in SLBMs, every 10 Ohio subs are worth 15 Russian subs of the same category. Russia's
strategic nuclear submarine fleet numbers are not so large as to justify such a large gap.

SLBMs are important and effective, but it is cheaper to make lots of IRBMs to hit Europe and Israel and Japan, and use ICBMs on trucks and trains for the US...

Inform the Americans that they too are sabotaging themselves, Columbia has 16 tubes.

When playing hide and seek with guns it makes more sense to have more players carrying less ammo than one player carrying all the ammo... smaller and lighter is easier to hide and cheaper to operate.

Now that there are no strategic arms agreements going to be working after 2021 then you could build some very interesting subs... imagine a single warhead scramjet missile that gets itself into orbit the size of a cruise missile with 200 on each sub...

x_54_u43 wrote:Inform the Americans that they too are sabotaging themselves, Columbia has 16 tubes.

Get informed yourself first. The Ohio class has 24 and there are 14 SSBN versions. Columbia is some future boat that is supposed
to have 16 tubes with improved Trident missiles. Until they build them don't piss around claiming that 16 is cast in stone. Also,
sunshine, the Ohio's are going to be around for a while which renders your whole point totally moot.

Russia has 3 active Borei SSBNs with 10 total planned and 4 under construction. It also has 6 active Delta IV with 16 missile tubes
each. Clearly the US will have SLBM missile superiority for many years to come.

The point about having more submarines with less eggs in their baskets would make sense if Russia would deploy 50% to 100% more of them
than the yanquis. As it stands the yanquis can transition their Ohio's to the alleged 16 tube Columbia's while still dominating Russia
and satisfying the less eggs criterion.

It is ironic that the country that fields the most powerful land based ICBM can't even match the number of SLBMs deployed by the USA
and has a weaker variant.  The deciders who chose 16 tubes instead of 20 for Russian strategic nuclear submarines must have been
subconsciously sabotaging Russian interests at the very least.   Putting more tubes in a large submarine is almost a no brainer.  
But as it stands, ignoring the differences in SLBMs, every 10 Ohio subs are worth 15 Russian subs of the same category.  Russia's
strategic nuclear submarine fleet numbers are not so large as to justify such a large gap.  

Atleast give them credit for wanting to field scramjet missiles for their submarines(possibly carry nuclear warheads) those are impossible to track on radars while SLBMs on the other hand are a little more easier to deal with according to theory. To me it is pointless wanting to field SLBMs only if they have accomplished the goal they needed for the Zircon. I assure you that Russia with A-235, new Voronezh ground radars, Mobile S-500s, ELIK satellites with possible constellation plans, Tundra satellites, photonic integrated circuit production with radar products later, etc will have a way easier time to intercept SLBMs than the U.S. with GMD, an/spy-6 with SM-6 newer variants, new infrared satellites at LEO(which is a retarded idea to get easily intercepted by air defenses and aircrafts with anti-sat capabilities) would against Zircon missiles which can lurk anywhere at sea closer to the U.S. coasts.

SLBMs suck but that's the option for now until the Zircons become operational with their final stats from testing.

Russia has 3 active Borei SSBNs with 10 total planned and 4 under construction. It also has 6 active Delta IV with 16 missile tubes
each. Clearly the US will have SLBM missile superiority for many years to come.

The nuclear triad is not an even and equal thing... AFAIK Russia has never had more SSBNs than land based ICBMs, while the US with two large oceans either side of it has favoured the mobility of having its deterrent in boomers... it is no big deal really.

Russia is never going to spend anything like what the US spends on "defence" so trying to beat them in numbers with something with no practical value except during WWIII makes no sense at all... there is no reward for having the most Boomers and certainly no reward for having the most SLBMs.

A Borei is a magnificent example of technology, but why would you want 20 or 30... except for WWIII they are useless and are expensive.

Vastly better to have 10 of them, which will give them 160 missiles each with 6 warheads... that is 960 warheads. Why do you think having 24 missiles in each boat improve things? That would mean 1440 warheads... so until 2021 you can't have any bombers or ICBMs... but even afterwards what would they do with all these subs and missiles?

If you instead have a moderate number of SSBNs and that way you can have more strategic bombers... that can be used in a conventional role to support operations around the world, with cruise missiles that can be fitted with conventional warheads and actually used in situations other than WWIII.... or indeed ICBMs that at the end of their lives can be used to launch satellites...

We are talking value for money... something Americans don't understand of course...

The point about having more submarines with less eggs in their baskets would make sense if Russia would deploy 50% to 100% more of them
than the yanquis. As it stands the yanquis can transition their Ohio's to the alleged 16 tube Columbia's while still dominating Russia
and satisfying the less eggs criterion.

What America does is not Russias problem, but eventually someone in the White house will want a strategic arms treaty of some sort with Russia... I am sure American wont care about scrapping some of their Ohios... some of them are quite old... I don't think Russians will be happy about scrapping Boreis though considering they will all still be pretty new.

SLBMs suck but that's the option for now until the Zircons become operational with their final stats from testing.

In theory SLBMs are shorter ranged and slower ballistic weapons... the top tier models of S-400 with the ability to intercept 4.8km/s targets should be able to engage SLBMs.... which means ICBMs can be engaged with S-500 only but SLBMs by S-500 and S-400 which increases the number of air defence groups in Russian territory can engage them... in war nothing is safe from everything... the point is to minimise the number of threats that can defeat you... so while so called western experts were deriding BTR-60/70 and 80 vehicles because of their weak armour, equivalent western units moved around the battlefield in duece and a half trucks with no turret mounted weapons and no protection from small arms fire at all. The fact that they moved to Strykers suggests they are happy to eat crow but they wont admit they were wrong...