Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+84
TMA1
ALAMO
Arkanghelsk
Krepost
Mir
Podlodka77
owais.usmani
ult
lancelot
limb
Kiko
magnumcromagnon
Rasisuki Nebia
lyle6
andalusia
LMFS
miroslav
xeno
ultimatewarrior
thegopnik
Rodion_Romanovic
miketheterrible
Labrador
mnztr
Ned86
franco
hoom
PapaDragon
walle83
KiloGolf
Hole
verkhoturye51
Tsavo Lion
Peŕrier
Singular_Transform
Arrow
Project Canada
Honesroc
Tolstoy
Singular_trafo
SeigSoloyvov
Isos
nastle77
slasher
Svyatoslavich
Big_Gazza
artjomh
Morpheus Eberhardt
JohninMK
GunshipDemocracy
Stealthflanker
RTN
jhelb
Kimppis
Dima
Werewolf
mack8
flamming_python
eridan
kvs
Zivo
sepheronx
max steel
Austin
chicken
par far
Mike E
KomissarBojanchev
Flyingdutchman
collegeboy16
etaepsilonk
navyfield
calripson
Vann7
George1
dionis
TheArmenian
Hachimoto
TR1
Viktor
GarryB
runaway
Admin
Russian Patriot
88 posters

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    avatar
    owais.usmani


    Posts : 1784
    Points : 1780
    Join date : 2019-03-27
    Age : 37

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  owais.usmani Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:15 am

    https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2021/03/09/submarine-catches-fire-providence-port/4643050001/

    PROVIDENCE — Like many old warships, the afterlife of Juliet 484 has been quite extended and nowhere near as heady as those Cold War days when the Russian K-77 submarine tracked the USS Saratoga.

    Another chapter in that afterlife unfolded Tuesday morning when the hull of Juliet caught fire as workers disassembled it with blowtorches in a scrapyard off Allens Avenue.

    The blaze inflamed an outer sheathing of black rubber, which sent thick black smoke billowing high above the port area along Route 95.

    Providence firefighters went to the location at 9:34 a.m., set up their hoses and quickly doused the fire.

    The project of dissembling Juliet, underway since June 2019, continues.

    The former tourist attraction-turned-sunken-wreck-turned environmental hazard has been a scrap metal prospect far longer than the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management would have hoped.

    The project to dispose of the submarine, by Rhode Island Recycled Metals LLC, is the subject of a standing consent decree ordered by Superior Court.

    At one time during the Cold War, both the sub and the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier Saratoga shadowed each other.

    The boat’s afterlife kicked off following the thaw after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    It was sold and used as a restaurant and vodka bar in Helsinki, Finland, in the 1990s, towed to Florida and abandoned. It then became a set for the 2002 Harrison Ford movie “K-19: The Widowmaker.”

    The USS Saratoga Museum Foundation in Rhode Island acquired the boat and created a floating museum in 2002.

    Then, during a 2007 nor'easter, it sank. It was subsequently sold for scrap.

    On Tuesday, a spokesman for the Department of Environmental Management, Michael Healey, said the scrapyard has been the target of DEM legal actions since 2010.

    In 2019, said Healey, under that pressure from DEM, the scrapyard pumped out Juliet, refloated her, and moved her closer to shore and began tearing the hull apart.

    On Tuesday, he said, part of the sub remained in the water but other parts were on dry ground.

    Workers were within the interior of the hull, cutting from the inside, when the thick rubber on the exterior caught fire, said Healey.

    The prompt response by Providence firefighters controlled the blaze in time to head off potential environmental blight, Healey said.

    “The fire was not hot enough to liquify that rubber into an oil, which could have been an environmental problem because that’s going to drain into the river,” he said.

    Both Healey and Deputy Assistant Fire Chief Steve Capracotta said that only about a third of the former 282-foot submarine was left over prior to the fire.

    "Yes, it's a submarine, but it's not what people think of when you say submarine," Capracotta said.
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4558
    Points : 4550
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Big_Gazza Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:17 pm

    Another chapter in that afterlife unfolded Tuesday morning when the hull of Juliet caught fire as workers disassembled it with blowtorches in a scrapyard off Allens Avenue.

    The blaze inflamed an outer sheathing of black rubber, which sent thick black smoke billowing high above the port area along Route 95.

    Providence firefighters went to the location at 9:34 a.m., set up their hoses and quickly doused the fire.

    So when Russian subs catch fire in Russian shipyards due to hot works igniting their rubberised acoustic coatings it is a sign of Rusky incompetence and corruption, but when it happens in the US it passes with little mention, and certainly doesn't cast a shadow over US exceptionalism... Suspect

    magnumcromagnon, kvs, owais.usmani and lancelot like this post

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  magnumcromagnon Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:51 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Another chapter in that afterlife unfolded Tuesday morning when the hull of Juliet caught fire as workers disassembled it with blowtorches in a scrapyard off Allens Avenue.

    The blaze inflamed an outer sheathing of black rubber, which sent thick black smoke billowing high above the port area along Route 95.

    Providence firefighters went to the location at 9:34 a.m., set up their hoses and quickly doused the fire.

    So when Russian subs catch fire in Russian shipyards due to hot works igniting their rubberised acoustic coatings it is a sign of Rusky incompetence and corruption, but when it happens in the US it passes with little mention, and certainly doesn't cast a shadow over US exceptionalism...   Suspect


    Uncle Sham's exceptionalism on display! Wink

    "Unusual adversary": The crew of a nuclear submarine of the US Navy faced an invasion of bedbugs

    dino00, Big_Gazza, kvs and Hole like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5092
    Points : 5088
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  LMFS Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:50 am

    From an interview today with Evmenov:

    – What kind of replenishment is waiting for nuclear submariners in the near future?

    – By the end of the year, the Russian Navy will receive the Knyaz Oleg strategic missile submarine of the Borey project, the Kazan and Novosibirsk nuclear submarines of the Yasen project, which are being built at the Sevmash enterprise. This year, two strategic missile submarines, the Knyaz Potemkin and Dmitry Donskoy, will also be laid down.
    Along with the construction of the 4th generation of nuclear submarines, work is underway to create the next, 5th generation of multi-purpose and strategic submarines. This task is assigned to designers, scientific organizations and the Military training and research center of the Russian Navy, which provides military scientific support for the design and construction of ships throughout the entire cycle.
    I would like to emphasize that the process of designing and building submarines of the series has an important feature. Each subsequent ship of the same project embodies more and more new technological solutions. There is an indisputable logic in this, following which we keep up with, and often outstrip, the world's scientific and technological progress in the field of underwater shipbuilding. To do this, we have everything: a scientific base, a brilliant design idea, and enterprises capable of building reliable and modern submarines.

    http://redstar.ru/ih-stihiya-glubina-morskaya/

    GarryB, dino00, kvs, x_54_u43 and Hole like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5092
    Points : 5088
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  LMFS Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:34 am

    The source spoke about the re-equipment of all Russian multi-purpose submarines

    MOSCOW, March 24-RIA Novosti. All multi-purpose nuclear submarines (submarines) The Russian Navy of projects 971, 949A and 885 will be armed with Kalibr, Onyx and Zircon missiles, a source in the military-industrial complex told RIA Novosti.
    Earlier, the commander-in-chief of the Navy, Admiral Nikolai Evmenov, said that the service life of the most numerous multi-purpose nuclear submarines of projects 949A and 971 in the Russian fleet will be doubled, they will be re-equipped.

    "After modernization, the multipurpose nuclear submarines of projects 971 and 949A will be armed with kalibras, onyx And Zircons. Containers for these missiles are universal, " the source said.
    Now these submarines are regularly armed with mine-torpedo weapons.

    https://ria.ru/20210324/podlodka-1602570481.html

    dino00 and kvs like this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4558
    Points : 4550
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Big_Gazza Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:56 am

    LMFS wrote:The source spoke about the re-equipment of all Russian multi-purpose submarines

    MOSCOW, March 24-RIA Novosti. All multi-purpose nuclear submarines (submarines) The Russian Navy of projects 971, 949A and 885 will be armed with Kalibr, Onyx and Zircon missiles, a source in the military-industrial complex told RIA Novosti.
    Earlier, the commander-in-chief of the Navy, Admiral Nikolai Evmenov, said that the service life of the most numerous multi-purpose nuclear submarines of projects 949A and 971 in the Russian fleet will be doubled, they will be re-equipped.

    "After modernization, the multipurpose nuclear submarines of projects 971 and 949A will be armed with kalibras, onyx And Zircons. Containers for these missiles are universal, " the source said.
    Now these submarines are regularly armed with mine-torpedo weapons.

    https://ria.ru/20210324/podlodka-1602570481.html

    How can Pr.971 carry Onix and Zircons? Suspect

    They are too broad to be launched from torpedo tubes (dia ~ 0.7m) , and the 971M modernisation is not adding a VLS.

    Journos getting it wrong again??
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5092
    Points : 5088
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  LMFS Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:23 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:How can Pr.971 carry Onix and Zircons? Suspect

    They are too broad to be launched from torpedo tubes (dia ~ 0.7m) , and the 971M modernisation is not adding a VLS.

    Journos getting it wrong again??

    I have read that before and it makes sense with the "general mobilization" we are seeing in the VMF to get as many Tsirkon carriers as possible, specially if they are subs. The 971 has 4x 650 mm torpedo tubes, apparently that could be enough for Tsirkon.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13207
    Points : 13249
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  PapaDragon Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:33 pm

    BigGazza wrote:How can Pr.971 carry Onix and Zircons?

    They are too broad to be launched from torpedo tubes (dia ~ 0.7m) , and the 971M modernisation is not adding a VLS. ...

    Onyx part probably refers to Oscars not Akulas



    LMFS wrote:...service life of the most numerous multi-purpose nuclear submarines of projects 949A and 971 in the Russian fleet will be doubled, they will be re-equipped....

    Doubled service life? What does this mean exactly?

    Are they overhauling them to such extent that they will realistically double their service life? Can it even be done? (Yay if yes)

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5092
    Points : 5088
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  LMFS Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:45 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:Doubled service life? What does this mean exactly?

    Are they overhauling them to such extent that they will realistically double their service life? Can it even be done? (Yay if yes)

    I guess it will depend on the particular condition and already spent life of each unit, the message I take is that they will be added to the VMF for the foreseeable future as attack / missile carrier subs, at least until they can be substituted by the Yasen. It is clear that new subs are not produced fast enough for either deterrence or actual fight against the USN submarine forces, so they need all the usable old units completely modernized and thrown into the mix for at least 10-15 years.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38539
    Points : 39039
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB Thu Mar 25, 2021 3:18 am

    Well I suspect doubled their service life can be looked at in two different ways.

    First would be how old are they now... the time from being put into service to now a doubled service life means they can remain in service for the same period again... ie

    The ones getting upgrades now entered service in the early 1990s so doubled service life by that definition would be another 30 years of potential service life... which seems a lot.

    The other way they could look at it was they expected these boats to last say 40 years in total, so a boat that entered service in 1990 would be expected to last until about 2030... which would be another 10 years, so with this overhaul and upgrade to double their expected service life they expect to keep using them till 2040, or another 20 years.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13207
    Points : 13249
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  PapaDragon Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:56 am


    Also how much time those Akulas spend in the water and how much on dry land?

    Because that could be extremely important factor
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10384
    Points : 10364
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Hole Fri Mar 26, 2021 8:52 pm

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Umka-210
    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Umka-211
    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Umka-212
    3 subs in the Arctic.

    GarryB, George1, dino00, Big_Gazza, zardof, LMFS and lancelot like this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4558
    Points : 4550
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Big_Gazza Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:36 pm

    The three boats are apparently:

    K-18 Karelia, Pr 667BDRM

    K-407 Novomoskovsk, Pr 667BDRM

    K-549 Kynaz Vladimir, Pr 955A

    Prince Vladimir is the closest to the camera in the 3-boat view

    GarryB likes this post

    Kiko
    Kiko


    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2802
    Join date : 2020-11-11
    Age : 75
    Location : Brasilia

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Kiko Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:34 pm

    "Strengthen the naval component of the nuclear triad": what makes the Liner ballistic missile unique
    March 31, 2021
    Alexey Zakvasin, Elizaveta Komarova for RT Russian.

    On March 31, 2011, Russian specialists completed R&D work on the creation of the R-29RMU2.1 Liner sea liquid intercontinental ballistic missile. The weapon was developed to equip the Project 667BDRM Dolphin nuclear submarine cruisers, which are part of the Northern Fleet. The peculiarity of the missile is that it can be equipped with a wide range of nuclear weapons and missile defense penetration complexes. In terms of payload volume and flight range, the R-29RMU2.1 confidently surpasses the solid-propellant Bulava. Experts call the Liner the most powerful and effective sea-based nuclear weapon in the world.

    Ten years ago, Russia completed experimental design work (R&D) on the creation of a sea three-stage intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) R-29RMU2.1 "Liner". The key role in the implementation of the project was played by the specialists of JSC “SRC named after academician V.P. Makeeva "(Miass, Chelyabinsk region) Yuri Kaverin and Boris Smirnov.

    The first test launch of the rocket took place on May 20, 2011 in the Barents Sea from the mine of the Yekaterinburg nuclear submarine. The Liner warhead successfully hit the target at the Kura training ground in Kamchatka.

    The new ICBM was officially adopted by the Navy in January 2014. The serial production of missiles was deployed at the facilities of the Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant JSC.

    "Outperforms all modern naval missiles"

    The Liner is a representative of the class of liquid-propellant ICBMs, which were developed as part of the program for the rearmament of Project 667BDRM Dolphin submarine cruisers built in the 1980s. The goal of this modernization was to extend the operational life of the submarines until 2030.

    This type of nuclear-powered submarines is part of the Northern Fleet and still forms the basis of the naval component of Russia's strategic nuclear triad, but in the coming years the role of the main strike force of the Navy should be transferred to the family of the new generation of Project 955 Borey submarines .

    Each submarine of the 667BDRM project houses 16 launchers. The peculiarity of cruisers of this type is the possibility of launching ICBMs in any direction relative to the course of movement. Under water, rockets, as a rule, fly out at depths of up to 55 m at a speed of 6-7 knots (11.1-12.9 km / h). If necessary, ammunition can be launched in one salvo.

    R-29RMU2.1 was created on the basis of R-29RMU2 "Sineva", on which work took place from 1998 to 2007. The firing range of this missile exceeds 11.5 thousand km. The ICBM received medium-power warheads, anti-missile defense systems, a satellite navigation system and a Malakhit-3 computer complex.

    "The fundamental difference between this machine (" Sineva ". - RT ) from its predecessor (R-29RM. - RT ) is that it has changed the size of the steps, installed ten nuclear units for individual guidance, increased the security of the complex from the action of an electromagnetic pulse, a system for overcoming the enemy's missile defense has been installed, ”the materials of the RF Ministry of Defense say.

    As reported earlier in an interview to the Interfax news agency, the General Designer of the SRC im. Makeeva Vladimir Degtyar, "Sineva" has significant modernization potential. Proof of this, as the scientist emphasized, is the development of the Liner.

    In a commentary on RT, the founder of the Military Russia portal, Dmitry Kornev, noted that the R-29RMU2.1 is unified with the Sineva for most of its components, but it compares favorably with it by the ability to install warheads of various capacities and more advanced missile defense systems.

    In the GRTs them. Makeeva argue that the "Liner" is not inferior to the American UGM-133A Trident II ICBM in terms of combat equipment, and "in terms of energy perfection (technical level) it surpasses all modern sea missiles of Great Britain, China, the United States and France."

    "The multivariance of the combat equipment of Russian missiles will allow to adequately respond to changes in the foreign policy situation associated with the deployment of an anti-missile defense system or treaty restrictions on the number of warheads," the developer's website explains.

    Depending on the assigned tasks, the Liner can be equipped with three types of weapons: ten small-power warheads with anti-missile defense systems, eight of the same class with enhanced anti-missile defense capabilities, or four middle-class ones with complexes to break through enemy defense systems.

    Liner missiles can carry a mixed configuration of warheads of different power classes. The operation of any combination of missiles and their combat equipment on submarines of the 667BDRM project is ensured by the modernized shipborne digital computer system "Arbat-U2.1" Makeeva.

    The developer does not disclose the tactical and technical characteristics of his brainchild. However, from Degtyar's words, it follows that the Liner's range is equivalent to Sineva (over 11.5 thousand km).

    Only approximate information about R-29RMU2.1 is disseminated in the media According to open data, the length of the Liner is about 15 m, the hull diameter is 1.9 m, the launch weight is 40.3 tons, the payload (throw weight) is up to 2-2.8 tons, the guaranteed service life is 18- 20 years, circular probable deviation (accuracy indicator) - no more than 250 m.

    Degtyar believes that the high technical characteristics of the Liner were achieved thanks to a number of innovations: the increased size of the circular and arbitrary zones for disengagement of warheads, the use of flat trajectories “in the entire range of firing ranges in astro-inertial and astro-radio-inertial (with correction using GLONASS satellites. - RT ) modes operation of the control system".

    Overcoming missile defense

    In an interview with RT, the editor-in-chief of the National Defense magazine, Igor Korotchenko, noted that the Russian Defense Ministry made an adequate decision by launching a program to re-equip Project 667BDRM cruisers with the placement of Liner-type missiles.

    “The creation of this ICBM allowed keeping Project 667BDRM submarines in service and at the same time strengthening the naval component of our nuclear triad. The modernization was dictated by the need to improve the capabilities of overcoming the missile defense of a potential adversary, ”said Korotchenko.

    According to the expert, there is every reason to believe that the Liner is able to cope with the task of breaking through any missile defense system, like the R-30 Bulava naval ICBM , which is part of the arsenal of Project 955 submarine cruisers.

    As Dmitry Kornev explained, in terms of energy characteristics, Liner confidently surpasses Bulava. In practice, this advantage translates into a higher range and a larger payload. According to the expert, Sineva and Liner are the most powerful and efficient missiles in the world.

    “However, it is necessary to understand that liquid and solid-propellant ICBMs are weapons of different classes. Liquid-propellant rockets a priori have the best energy and mass characteristics. At the same time, they are not devoid of certain drawbacks, ”says Kornev.

    The main problem with liquid-propellant ICBMs is the less safe (compared to solid-propellant samples) operating conditions. In addition, Liner is structurally more complex, which naturally makes its production very time consuming, argues Kornev.

    “Another disadvantage of liquid-propellant ICBMs when compared with solid-propellant samples is the so-called liquid start. Before launch, the mine where the missile is located is filled with water, which increases the likelihood of being detected by the enemy. The Bulava has a dry start and a short active (initial - RT ) flight section, "Kornev noted.

    On the whole, according to the expert, Moscow is moving in the right direction, betting on the construction of Boreyevs with an arsenal of relatively simple, lightweight and safe solid-propellant missiles of the Bulava type. Nevertheless, according to Kornev, liquid ICBMs will play a significant role in the naval component of the Russian nuclear forces for a long time to come.

    “The power of liquid-propellant naval ICBMs will definitely be in demand as long as Project 667BDRM submarines are in service. It cannot be ruled out that the planned date of their decommissioning will shift to the right. Thus, the Liner will participate in ensuring the nuclear deterrence of the United States and its allies for about 20 years, ”summed up Kornev.

    https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/847950-lainer-r-29rmu21-podlodki-667

    franco, Big_Gazza and Hole like this post

    avatar
    limb


    Posts : 1549
    Points : 1575
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  limb Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:26 am

    Why did the russians never develop conventional ballistic missiles with maneuverable MIRVs accurate enough to hit carriers , like the DF series? Being able to equip SSBNs with anti ship BMs(like a conventionally armed bulava) wouldve been pretty useful to soften up CBG defenses, even if they're not that accurate. The air force have very aeroballistic missiles, so why can't the bulava or Leiner be as accurate?
    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2575
    Points : 2573
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  lancelot Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:54 am

    limb wrote:Why did the russians never develop conventional ballistic missiles with maneuverable MIRVs accurate enough to hit carriers , like the DF series? Being able to equip SSBNs with anti ship BMs(like a conventionally armed bulava) wouldve been pretty useful to soften up CBG defenses, even if they're not that accurate. The air force have very aeroballistic missiles, so why can't the bulava or Leiner  be as accurate?

    Because they did not need to? They have had ramjet powered missiles like the Granit for decades.
    An air breathing missile will always have more range than a rocket. Or be smaller so you can pack more of them.
    Aircraft and ships are way, way slower than a ramjet missile and have less range than one.

    They can even carry tactical nuclear warheads (500kt ones) so a single Granit can wipe out a carrier battle group.

    Historically Soviet solid rockets had really crap miniaturization. After being one of the leaders in solid rocket technology in WW2 the Soviet Union squandered that lead by massive investments into hypergolic rockets to the detriment of solids. Just look at the size of the Typhoon class submarines because of those R-39 Rif missiles. This made solid rockets to hit ships highly unwieldy. Only recently in modern Russia has the gap been filled. You also need highly specialized modern electronics to have enough precision at those high velocities. That only became realistic in the late 1980s, early 1990s at best.


    Last edited by lancelot on Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:14 am; edited 1 time in total

    PapaDragon likes this post

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13207
    Points : 13249
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  PapaDragon Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:11 am

    lancelot wrote:...They can even carry tactical nuclear warheads (500kt ones) so a single Granit can wipe out a carrier battle group....

    People keep forgetting what nuclear weapons actually are

    This missile can pack 500kt

    For reference bomb that hit Hiroshima was  ''just'' 15kt

    Here is reminder of what 15kt did to Hiroshima:

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 _113815510_83a99b1e-7787-41b7-a3b1-d8d01d071b87

    Now multiply this by 34 pwnd

    Big_Gazza and lancelot like this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2575
    Points : 2573
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  lancelot Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:18 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    lancelot wrote:...They can even carry tactical nuclear warheads (500kt ones) so a single Granit can wipe out a carrier battle group....

    People keep forgetting what nuclear weapons actually are

    This missile can pack 500kt

    For reference bomb that hit Hiroshima was  ''just'' 15kt

    Here is reminder of what 15kt did to Hiroshima:
    ...
    Now multiply this by 34 pwnd

    Yeah calling it a "tactical" nuclear warhead is a big understatement. More because of the role it has in the field than the terminal effect to be honest.

    Even a Trident II SLBM warhead is typically like 100kt or less. Although it can carry less warheads with close to 500kt power.

    One of those 500kt Granit warheads blowing up is enough to bring down the carrier, the cruisers, the destroyers, and even the submarines below water with the carrier battlegroup. It is a huge wallop. Any naval US invasion of the Soviet Union would have been dead stopped before it even started. The Granit can also carry conventional and thermobaric warheads in case you want to have more limited effects.
    avatar
    limb


    Posts : 1549
    Points : 1575
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  limb Fri Apr 02, 2021 2:15 am

    lancelot wrote:
    limb wrote:Why did the russians never develop conventional ballistic missiles with maneuverable MIRVs accurate enough to hit carriers , like the DF series? Being able to equip SSBNs with anti ship BMs(like a conventionally armed bulava) wouldve been pretty useful to soften up CBG defenses, even if they're not that accurate. The air force have very aeroballistic missiles, so why can't the bulava or Leiner  be as accurate?

    Because they did not need to? They have had ramjet powered missiles like the Granit for decades.
    An air breathing missile will always have more range than a rocket. Or be smaller so you can pack more of them.
    Aircraft and ships are way, way slower than a ramjet missile and have less range than one.

    They can even carry tactical nuclear warheads (500kt ones) so a single Granit can wipe out a carrier battle group.

    Historically Soviet solid rockets had really crap miniaturization. After being one of the leaders in solid rocket technology in WW2 the Soviet Union squandered that lead by massive investments into hypergolic rockets to the detriment of solids. Just look at the size of the Typhoon class submarines because of those R-39 Rif missiles. This made solid rockets to hit ships highly unwieldy. Only recently in modern Russia has the gap been filled. You also need highly specialized modern electronics to have enough precision at those high velocities. That only became realistic in the late 1980s, early 1990s at best.

    Its disingenious to compare cruise missiles to ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles have ranges of thousands of kilmeters and can be launched from land, while only a handful of extremely expensive ships can carry granit. Also cruise missiles are inherently easier to shoot down than ballistic missiles, and the antiship missile launchers, which are ships, aircraft and submarines have to be much closer to the CBG makig them more vulnerable.


    They can even carry tactical nuclear warheads (500kt ones) so a single Granit can wipe out a carrier battle group.
    Oh, another "we dont need this very useful weapon because we have nukes" argument Rolling Eyes . this 500kt nuclear warhead is more survivable in a maneuverable reentry vehicle traveling at mach 12 and launched from 8000km away.  Whats the point of building conventional anti-ship weapons at all then?


    Historically Soviet solid rockets had really crap miniaturization. After being one of the leaders in solid rocket technology in WW2 the Soviet Union squandered that lead by massive investments into hypergolic rockets to the detriment of solids. Just look at the size of the Typhoon class submarines because of those R-39 Rif missiles. This made solid rockets to hit ships highly unwieldy. Only recently in modern Russia has the gap been filled. You also need highly specialized modern electronics to have enough precision at those high velocities. That only became realistic in the late 1980s, early 1990s at best.

    If the chinese could perfect antiship ballistic missiles with maneuverable reentry vehicles, then so could the Russians.  The russian hypergolic ballistic missiles are just as reliable as solid uel rockets. Again, theres no reason for the topol or bulava not to have a conventional maneuverable reentry vehicle that can destroy The Russians already have avangard, and there's no reason why it shouldnt have a conventional warhead for antiship strikes.
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4558
    Points : 4550
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Big_Gazza Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:20 am

    Nevertheless, according to Kornev, liquid ICBMs will play a significant role in the naval component of the Russian nuclear forces for a long time to come.

    “The power of liquid-propellant naval ICBMs will definitely be in demand as long as Project 667BDRM submarines are in service. It cannot be ruled out that the planned date of their decommissioning will shift to the right. Thus, the Liner will participate in ensuring the nuclear deterrence of the United States and its allies for about 20 years, ”summed up Kornev.

    The last Delta-IV/667BDRMs to remain in service until 2034? Yeah, that sounds about right as they are good boats.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38539
    Points : 39039
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:57 am

    Why did the russians never develop conventional ballistic missiles with maneuverable MIRVs accurate enough to hit carriers , like the DF series?

    Because they have agreements limiting the number of ICBMs they are allowed to have... how many do you think they should take away from destroying important strategic targets in the west to engage aircraft carriers they already have land and sea based anti ship missiles to destroy?

    Being able to equip SSBNs with anti ship BMs(like a conventionally armed bulava) wouldve been pretty useful to soften up CBG defenses, even if they're not that accurate.

    Wouldn't it make more sense to use SLBMs to target things in Europe and the US and her bases around the world than wasting them on aircraft carriers, for which the SSGNs and cruisers and destroyers already had missiles?

    The air force have very aeroballistic missiles, so why can't the bulava or Leiner be as accurate?

    When they have Granit and Vulcan and X-22M and X-32 why waste valuable Bulava and Liner on such ineffective targets as US aircraft carriers... which have not been able to approach Russia to launch a strike for several decades now... and with Kinzhal on MiG-31Ks they are in an even worse position.


    Historically Soviet solid rockets had really crap miniaturization. After being one of the leaders in solid rocket technology in WW2 the Soviet Union squandered that lead by massive investments into hypergolic rockets to the detriment of solids

    To be fair liquid rocket motors are more powerful than solid rocket motors and allow engine shutdown and restart as well as the ability to throttle and use fuel efficiently.... unlike solid rocket fuel with fixed burning characteristics.

    Just look at the size of the Typhoon class submarines because of those R-39 Rif missiles.

    The R-39 is a 16m long 2.4m diameter missile that weighed 84 tons... the Liner missiles were liquid fuelled 1.9m diameter missiles that were 15 metres long that weighed 40 tons so the real differences were in weight and width... the Typhoon was big because it had a triple hull with two spaced hulls side by side and 20 launch tubes fitted to the sub.

    The R-39 had a range of about 8,300km with 10 warheads and Liner a range of 8,300km with 12 warheads, but Liner is less than half the weight...

    This made solid rockets to hit ships highly unwieldy.

    They were slightly wider and slightly longer... not really enough to make much difference... but certainly a large amount heavier than their actual anti ship and anti carrier missiles which were much lighter.

    Only recently in modern Russia has the gap been filled

    I disagree... the S-300 SAM has been outperforming Patriot since the late 1970s, and their strategic missiles have been just as good across the board including cruise missiles.

    Weight for weight the Russians are certainly no worse than the west, and in some areas despite backward electronics they had better systems.

    Their anti ship missiles actually used swarm tactics the west is planning for future drones... things the Soviets had in service in the early 1980s.

    Sensor fused top attack self forging fragment submunitions using MMW radar were used in Soviet artillery and aircraft cluster bombs in the late 1980s and about mid 1990s (1996 or so) they added IR sensors to prevent the munitions from attacking targets already burning... if they didn't detect a target by the time they hit the ground they flipped over and used their radar and IR sensors to detect vehicles driving over them and attacked hull belly armour like a mine...

    There was talk about such things in the west but have they managed to put them into service?

    The Russian systems are standardised for cluster bombs and standard rocket and gun tube artillery rounds in a range of calibres and weights.

    You also need highly specialized modern electronics to have enough precision at those high velocities. That only became realistic in the late 1980s, early 1990s at best.

    You need to lack a navy and other options to need to waste expensive strategic ballistic missiles on naval targets. China didn't have a navy so the cheapest simplest way to defend themselves was with ballistic missiles... and good on them... a clever choice... it is like asking why the US has such crap anti ship missiles as harpoon and tomahawk.... the reality is that their enemies really didn't have big enough and significant enough navies to warrant better missiles.

    The Harpoon and Tomahawk are not amazing, but in the right situation certainly can sink ships... especially if they are unaware, but against a carrier group like the US operates they would be useless... but the US has never faced a fully operational enemy carrier group so carrying lots and lots of Harpoons is good enough.

    Not any more... a modern Russian corvette could probably shoot down 30-50 Harpoons on its own and the Kuznetsov in its original form has 192 TOR missiles plus Kashtan batteries with more missiles and guns too and plenty of Ka-31 helicopters to be stationed around the ship so nothing could sneak up without warning...

    And that is ignoring any cruisers and destroyers that will be operating with it.

    Now multiply this by 34

    Actually it is much much worse than that... a nuclear weapon designed to dive into the water before exploding can create an enormous mountain of super heated salt water 15-20km across that would bake sailors in their ships so the meat falls off their bones.

    Early underwater tests with nuclear weapons used between 2K ton and 20K ton bombs and you have probably seen the photos of a huge wall of water and tiny little toy ships around the edges... those little ships are destroyers...

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 _1100710

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 920x1210

    The craters are still present on the sea bed even today...


    One of those 500kt Granit warheads blowing up is enough to bring down the carrier, the cruisers, the destroyers, and even the submarines below water with the carrier battlegroup.

    It is worse for submarines... water does not compress so an explosion shockwave moving through water moves at incredible speed... in the same way as a row of marbles all touching... if you push on one side the marble at the other side moves immediately... it cannot compress so there are no gaps between the marbles so you have to wait for the marble to move a small distance and hit the next and the next and the next... the force moves like a wave through the water rather than as water moving... when it reaches the hull of a submarine inside the hull is air and air does compress so the hull collapses inward and the pressure inside the sub goes up enormously... if the sub is within 10km of a 2K ton explosion underwater it will be crushed and sunk...

    It is like dealing with enemy divers in your harbour... don't piss around shooting rifle bullets into the water.... after about 2 metre they will slow down and be non lethal. Drop a grenade in there and watch all the dead fish and dead divers float to the surface as you destroy their float glands or crush their lungs respectively.

    Its disingenious to compare cruise missiles to ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles have ranges of thousands of kilmeters and can be launched from land, while only a handful of extremely expensive ships can carry granit.

    The main carrier of Granit was Oscar class subs which carried 24 at a time.

    Do you think the Chinese have more than 24 of these anti ship ballistic missiles?

    Do they work.... do they test them?

    Also cruise missiles are inherently easier to shoot down than ballistic missiles, and the antiship missile launchers, which are ships, aircraft and submarines have to be much closer to the CBG makig them more vulnerable.

    Actually ballistic missiles are much more visible for most of their trajectory... they travel faster but you also get much more warning.

    Low flying cruise missiles are still hard to stop if you don't know you are under attack... supersonic and hypersonic manouvering missiles even more so.

    Oh, another "we dont need this very useful weapon because we have nukes" argument Rolling Eyes . this 500kt nuclear warhead is more survivable in a maneuverable reentry vehicle traveling at mach 12 and launched from 8000km away. Whats the point of building conventional anti-ship weapons at all then?

    Yeah... using a nuclear warhead on a Granit is much more dangerous than Russia launching a strategic nuclear ICBM at a US aircraft carrier group.... they will start WWIII over a Granit coming from a submarine and they wont know who launched it, whereas an ICBM lifting off from Russian territory that they monitor will not be noticed and even though it will they wont think it is the first missile as part of an all out strategic nuclear attack...

    Russia has anti carrier weapons... it does not need ballistic anti carrier weapons. Zircon will be 1000 times cheaper and more effective than any ICBM weapon they could come up with and vastly easier to hide or to use... without needing to resort to any nuclear payloads.


    If the chinese could perfect antiship ballistic missiles with maneuverable reentry vehicles, then so could the Russians.

    They could but the Russians and Soviets wanted to roam the worlds oceans and be able to defend themselves from US carrier groups anywhere they happened to be so they needed to take their anti carrier weapons with them... their current one is Onyx and their new one is Zircon and both are more portable and cheaper than a great big Chinese IRBM.

    China seems to be building aircraft carriers too... presumably they want access to the world without needing US permission too... pretty soon they will likely reveal their hypersonic anti ship missile too if they have not already.

    The russian hypergolic ballistic missiles are just as reliable as solid uel rockets. Again, theres no reason for the topol or bulava not to have a conventional maneuverable reentry vehicle that can destroy The Russians already have avangard, and there's no reason why it shouldnt have a conventional warhead for antiship strikes.

    Except that such weapons are limited by treaty so instead of wasting them on US carriers they probably prefer to keep them for targets that will do more damage to the west.

    A Kilo class submarine with a 15 Kilo ton torpedo could probably take down a US carrier group if it is that important to you... launch a spread of six of them to explode in a pattern all around the surface group running at very low speed long range mode so the Kilo can turn around and head away from the carnage... set to explode at a range of 50km perhaps with a running speed of perhaps 15-20 knots... the Kilo could get advanced information about teh carrier group from satellite
    tracking to fire a spread of nuclear torpedos to reach a point ahead of the carrier group to arrive and just settle down deep under water...

    The carrier group will be zig zagging but will generally be going somewhere and sailing along a rough line of travel that can be worked out easy enough. A spread of multiple weapons could be staggered to cover an enormous area of sea surface, which should ensure any subs operating with them will be inside the blast radius too.


    lancelot likes this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2575
    Points : 2573
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  lancelot Sat Apr 03, 2021 1:21 am

    FWIW the Chinese also cloned the Kalibr missiles they got with their Kilos as the YJ-18. They also supposedly have an Onyx clone, the CX-1. But I have never heard of that one being tested ever. They do have the YJ-12 which is ramjet powered and supposedly does work. They replaced the Moskits in their Sovs with YJ-12s recently when they refitted those ships. The CX-1 seems to be an export only product.

    As for their anti-ship ballistic missiles, like others said here, those things are expensive, huge, and the number of launchers they can use with those is limited.
    Likely a couple dozen launchers, probably not more than 50 total, with perhaps one extra missile recharge readily available.
    This is good enough to hit US carriers in the Eastern Pacific and perhaps the Northern Indic, but not the other ships.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38539
    Points : 39039
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:36 am

    I should add that Russia actually does have a ballistic anti carrier missile... it is based on the Iskander and is launched in mid flight from a MiG-31K and is called Kinzhal.

    It is better than an ICBM launched ballistic missile because an ICBM launched ballistic missile is just fast... its trajectory is predictable and therefore with the right missiles you can intercept it.

    Right now an S-400 could intercept such a target.

    S-500 would be even better able to intercept much longer ranged versions too.

    The manouvering high speed Kinzhal on the other hand would be difficult to intercept no matter what you used... and they currently have it in service... soon it will be replaced by the more efficient Zircon that is also a manouvering hypersonic weapon which will be very difficult to stop.

    They wont be 100% kills, but equally you wont need to launch hundreds just to be sure of a few dozen kills either.

    This means the launching force can be much smaller and therefore much more sneaky and much more likely to survive after attacking so they can attack again.
    avatar
    owais.usmani


    Posts : 1784
    Points : 1780
    Join date : 2019-03-27
    Age : 37

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  owais.usmani Sat Jun 26, 2021 9:46 pm

    Annual reports for Rubin and Malachite for 2020 are now available:

    https://e-disclosure.ru/portal/files.aspx?id=20096&type=2

    https://e-disclosure.ru/portal/files.aspx?id=18292&type=2&attempt=1

    Who can go through them and post the interesting bits? Very Happy

    GarryB, dino00 and LMFS like this post

    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10384
    Points : 10364
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Well, i am the new one here and hallo to everyone. My english is not the best but i'll give my best.

    Post  Hole Tue Dec 21, 2021 8:21 pm

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 955a_o13
    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 955a_o14
    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 955a_o15

    medo, George1, Big_Gazza, PapaDragon, DerWolf, zardof, LMFS and like this post


    Sponsored content


    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Feb 29, 2024 1:04 pm