Project 955: Borei class SSBN

Tsavo Lion wrote:I wonder, why they didn't use those SSN hauls for Yasen SSGNs instead? Were they so desperate to get the 1st 2 Boreys built ASAP?

Probably because a cutting edge SSN is a far more complex (and more expensive beast) than a boomer, and it is the boomers that are vital for national defense. Russia needed to finish the Severodvinsk to an advanced stage and design the follow-on improved variant before committing to extra hulls.

Mmmm, I suspect it's the other way around, being the SSBN's ships far more complex than SSNs.

Everybody, its dog and even its cat try to chase others' SSBNs 24/7.

Every SSBN has a requirement for unparalleled quietness and, at the same time, for superb sensors both environmental than magnetic and acoustic.

The choice to give top riority to 995s IMHO was based on a quite simple fact: if you loose your SSNs, you loose your ability to chase enemy's SSBN, and in turn to endanger enemy's deterrent. But if you loose your SSBNs, you loose your own deterrent.

Neither option is fancy, but the second could be far more catastrophic in terms of strategic balance.

Quietness & sensors r equally important to SSNs, SSGNs & SSBNs.
In previous decades, before Borei came out, USSR/Russian SSNs had to escort its SSBNs on patrols because of their higher noises, while, as far as I know & from all indications, the US SSBNs (now all based on LA class SSN) didn't need SSN escorts.
It's possible that the 1st 2 Boreis will later be converted to SSGNs or other specialized subs after the follow on class units replace them, if not before.

U.S. SSBNs are the Ohio class, and they are in no way related neither to Los Angeles nor Seawolf or Virginia SSNs.

It's speculated that in the future, to contain costs, next generation of U.S. SSBN could be derived from the Virginia class SSN.

The very concept that deriving a future SSBN from a SSN project could save money should be a fair testament about how much cutting edge technology has been poured until today in SSBN's design and development.

The same applies to everybody fielding boomers: loosing an SSN would be a tragedy, loosing a SSBN wolud be a strategic disaster.

While developing a new SSN some shortcut and compromise would be accepted to keep the whole project to some extent affordable, when designing a SSBN whatever is available in terms of technologies will be put to use if it could enhance boat's survival chances.

Talking of SSBN is talking about the most valuable strategic asset in terms of nuclear deterrence, neither silos or vehicle based ICBM, nor strategic bombers, are so hard to detect and engage for the enemy.

Past soviet's SSBN suffered mainly from their liquid propellant SLBM, making them both bulky and very little discreet when preparing their missiles to launch.

To make matters worst, a liquid propellant missile takes a long time to be ready to launch, and the minutes from when a SSBN rise from deeper waters to reach the intended launching deep are the most dangerous, exposing itself to detection as it crosses many thermoclines and signalling clearly it's close to launch.

The shorter the time to launch, the lesser the chances a stalking SSN could engage and destroy the SSBN before it launches his payload.

So there are very good reasons to try harder than with anything else to make SSBNs the most advanced boats technology could buy you.

Peŕrier wrote:U.S. SSBNs are the Ohio class, and they are in no way related neither to Los Angeles nor Seawolf or Virginia SSNs.

It's speculated that in the future, to contain costs, next generation of U.S. SSBN could be derived from the Virginia class SSN.

The very concept that deriving a future SSBN from a SSN project could save money should be a fair testament about how much cutting edge technology has been poured until today in SSBN's design and development.

The same applies to everybody fielding boomers: loosing an SSN would be a tragedy, loosing a SSBN wolud be a strategic disaster.

While developing a new SSN some shortcut and compromise would be accepted to keep the whole project to some extent affordable, when designing a SSBN whatever is available in terms of technologies will be put to use if it could enhance boat's survival chances.

Talking of SSBN is talking about the most valuable strategic asset in terms of nuclear deterrence, neither silos or vehicle based ICBM, nor strategic bombers, are so hard to detect and engage for the enemy.

Past soviet's SSBN suffered mainly from their liquid propellant SLBM, making them both bulky and very little discreet when preparing their missiles to launch.

To make matters worst, a liquid propellant missile takes a long time to be ready to launch, and the minutes from when a SSBN rise from deeper waters to reach the intended launching deep are the most dangerous, exposing itself to detection as it crosses many thermoclines and signalling clearly it's close to launch.

The shorter the time to launch, the lesser the chances a stalking SSN could engage and destroy the SSBN before it launches his payload.

So there are very good reasons to try harder than with anything else to make SSBNs the most advanced boats technology could buy you.

The borey is waaaay less expensive than the yassen

Peŕrier wrote:U.S. SSBNs are the Ohio class, and they are in no way related ..to Los Angeles..SSNs.
..a liquid propellant missile takes a long time to be ready to launch, ..

Both classes r related, even if not directly, by being concurrently produced by the same EB yard: http://armedforces.eu/compare/submarines_Los_Angeles-class_vs_Ohio-class
https://www.hazegray.org/shipbuilding/eb.htm
I can't find a link, but read somewhere that the Ohio class uses enlarged & elongated LA class haul. Their shapes r almost identical, except the conning tower positioned more forward & a hump behind it on the Ohio: https://2img.net/r/hpimg15/pics/270495submarinosestadounidenses.jpg

On a sub, unlike on land, their propellant is already in the BM, so why does it take "a long time to be ready to launch"?

Still they are not related, they are two very different boats.

About liquid propellant missiles, usually they need a warm up of internal mechanics before start to assure propulsion will work as expected.

It's something that solid propellant missiles dispense with, having almost no mechanical parts.

Tsavo Lion wrote:On a sub, unlike on land, their propellant is already in the BM, so why does it take "a long time to be ready to launch"?

Not true.  ICBM/SLBM using store-able hypergolic propellants are always in a fully fuelled condition.  A liquid fuelled missile might require some prep time (eg to pressurise tanks) but I doubt its significant.  Regarding "vulnerabilities" to the carrying SSBN, the boomer won't rise to firing depth until weapons are ready to fire, and the firing depth is no different to solids.  Finally, liquids are significantly more powerful propellants than solids, and the motors develop higher ISP.  Liquids are however less dense than solids so requires more volume, ie large tanks, and the liquid fuelled missile needs interstices to house its engines, pressure bottles etc so the missile tends to be larger.

Arrow wrote:

Why ? Propably 955 consisting of part 971 yes but 955A is propably more expensive than 955.

The first three 955 was assembled from leftover reactors/hull segments/sonars, so the fourth one needed new supply chain, and that is expensive .The cost of the first three together was as much as the fourth single unit.

However the borei A compared to yassen A at least two - maybe four times cheaper.

Arrow wrote:

However the borei A compared to yassen A at least two - maybe four times cheaper. wrote:

Why ? new Borey A use propably the same reactor, turbine, use new pump jet it is more expensive than a screw. Propably similar electronic equipment. What is so expensive in Yasen-M?

I never think about it, but let see the differences.
-better sonar for hunters
-Higher top speed for hunters
-more torpedo tube for hunters
-deeper dive for hunters ( it is dramatically increase the cost )
-lower noise level for hunters - the SSBNs can stay as far as they like from anything else, but the hunters has to get as close as possible

I think the biggest ticket item is the diving deep.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Arrow wrote:

Why ? new Borey A use propably the same reactor, turbine, use new pump jet it is more expensive than a screw. Propably similar electronic equipment. What is so expensive in Yasen-M?

I never think about it, but let see the differences.
-better sonar for hunters
-Higher top speed for hunters
-more torpedo tube for hunters
-deeper dive for hunters ( it is dramatically increase the cost )
-lower noise level for hunters - the SSBNs can stay as far as they like from anything else, but the hunters has to get as close as possible

I think the biggest ticket item is the diving deep.

and 16x ballistic missiles come for free? or at least 1 bln USD extra?

Singular_Transform wrote:

Arrow wrote:

Why ? new Borey A use propably the same reactor, turbine, use new pump jet it is more expensive than a screw. Propably similar electronic equipment. What is so expensive in Yasen-M?

I never think about it, but let see the differences.
-better sonar for hunters
-Higher top speed for hunters
-more torpedo tube for hunters
-deeper dive for hunters ( it is dramatically increase the cost )
-lower noise level for hunters - the SSBNs can stay as far as they like from anything else, but the hunters has to get as close as possible

I think the biggest ticket item is the diving deep.

Except that historically, SSBNs both in the west and in Soviet Union have always sported the best sensors and communication equipment available at the moment of their design, and the best quietening technologies as well.

And they cost far more than some torpedo tube or a stronger hull.

Speed has been always a function of hull strength and power-to-displacement available: being the power quite always the same between contemporary SSNs and SSBNs, because usually sharing the same reactors and sometimes even the same turbines, SSBNs have always been slower because larger, far larger in displacement compared to contemporary SSNs.

And anyway, with speed always comes noise, so there is little to no point in aiming to a greater top speed for SSBN, their first and foremost defense being quietness.

Again from an historical standpoint, it could be noted that SSBNs have always been more expensive to build than SSN, even without taking into account their SLBMs.

Can anyone explain what advantage the Borei class has over the Akula that justifies replacement?

From what I have read the Borei sounds like a total heap of shit.

PapaDragon wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:Can anyone explain what advantage the Borei class has over the Akula that justifies replacement?

From what I have read the Borei sounds like a total heap of shit.

And where did you read this?

Oh I read about it in a book called mien kampf.


The problem with the Borei is that it only carrys 16 bulavas and the bulava is a flat out average missile with none of the anti ABM abilities of the new land based systems and because the bulava can not carry more than 10 warheads the borei is lacking in the firepower department.

The Russian navy should focus on creating a new SLBM with better anti ABM capabilities and not creating new submarines that have no meaningfull advantage over the previous model.

Please, for the love of God, can you all stop being so fucking stupid and just learn to read?

Seriously, Nothing wrong with Borei. It's quieter, and packs a punch. And of course, has to fall within the limited numbers of nukes allowed in START treaty.

But it sounds like I will be ignored, but obvious fucking experts from a shit forums.

And Bulava missiles do fly irregularly like modern Russian land based missiles to avoid ABM systems.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Can anyone explain what advantage the Borei class has over the Akula that justifies replacement?

From what I have read the Borei sounds like a total heap of shit.

I assume you've been reading garbage like the National Interest? Are you trying to publicly embarrass yourself? if so, congratulations, its been a wild success...

To set you straight, the Borei are a replacement for the Delta III/IV not the Typhoon/Akula. The Borei is a generational improvement on the Delta in every respect . The Typhoons are already deactivated due to the retirement of their R-39 Rif (SS-N-20) and the only active unit (Donskoi) is a test bed for Bulava and not on active combat duty. The Deltas are getting a little old and will be phased out by 2030.

The Bulava missiles are specifically designed for defeating ABM systems, and are broadly comparable to the advanced R-29 variants such as Layner which have been developed to ensure the Deltas remain effective.

Big_Gazza wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:Can anyone explain what advantage the Borei class has over the Akula that justifies replacement?

From what I have read the Borei sounds like a total heap of shit.

I assume you've been reading garbage like the National Interest?  Are you trying to publicly embarrass yourself?  if so, congratulations, its been a wild success...  

To set you straight, the Borei are a replacement for the Delta III/IV not the Typhoon/Akula.  The Borei is a generational improvement on the Delta in every respect .  The Typhoons are already deactivated due to the retirement of their R-39 Rif (SS-N-20) and the only active unit (Donskoi) is a test bed for Bulava and not on active combat duty. The Deltas are getting a little old and will be phased out by 2030.

The Bulava missiles are specifically designed for defeating ABM systems, and are broadly comparable to the advanced R-29 variants such as Layner which have been developed to ensure the Deltas remain effective.  

This x10

Borei has less crew needed for it compared to Delta's, the missiles are more advanced but will admit Layner is up there with it in comparison, and will eventually be built enough to replace all the old Delta's then something else will be developed to replace the Borei's and it will be essentially the same situation as now.

Does the Phrase "Having all your eggs in one basket" ring any bells?

Current Strategic Arms limitations agreements limit Russia to 1,500 active operational nuclear warheads, so having 20 launch tubes with 20 missiles each fitted with 10 nuke warheads means you can have a maximum of 2.5 Borei submarines because that is your limit of 500 warheads for the Russian navy.