Sineva (R-29RMU) SLBM

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.

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.

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

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.  

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.

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