![Laughing](https://2img.net/i/fa/i/smiles/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing](https://2img.net/i/fa/i/smiles/icon_lol.gif)
Hole, Mir and Podlodka77 like this post
Podlodka77 wrote:I take all the credit for waking up this section...![]()
It's nice that people get away from the special military operation.
And let me add that Russia announced in May that it tested the K-561 Kazan at the maximum depth of application, and that depth is 600 meters. That's twice as much as diesel-electric submarines.
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14672145
The working depth for project 885/885M and 949A submarines is 520 meters. For project 971 submarines, it varies from variant to variant and ranges from 480 to 520 meters.
Hole, Broski and Podlodka77 like this post
The-thing-next-door wrote:One thing I have been wondering lately is, when the nuclear treaties fall through and everyone can have as many ballistic missile submarines as they wish. The Borie class submarines can only carry 96-160 lightweight nuclear warheads. Would we se something like the Akula return with perhaps liquid fueled SLBMs based around the Sarmat,s engines?
Mir likes this post
Podlodka77 wrote:
Lightweight ?
The useful payload of the RS-24 missile is 1,250 kilograms, while the R-30 Bulava carries 1,150 kilograms of payload.
Mir wrote:
You can not trust these figures at all. As an example the K-278 Komsomolets (Mike)with an inner titanium hull was designed to reach depths of 1200+ meters. Some sources (besides Wikipedia) gives some interesting figures regarding the Lira/Alfa class saying it could reach depths just short of that at 1160 meters, but the test depth in Wikipedia is given at something like 400 meters!![]()
The Los Angeles on the other hand (due to a thin hull design in order to breach 30+ knots) could dive to around 390 meters max which was 90 meters less than the previous generation Sturgeon class!
GarryB, Hole, Mir and Podlodka77 like this post
There will be 12 Boreis. This means between 1.152 and 1.920 warheads. Only for the seabased part of the triad. How much do you want?The-thing-next-door wrote:
The RS-24 carries fewer warheads.
ALAMO and Podlodka77 like this post
Podlodka77 likes this post
Hole wrote:There will be 12 Boreis. This means between 1.152 and 1.920 warheads. Only for the seabased part of the triad. How much do you want?The-thing-next-door wrote:
The RS-24 carries fewer warheads.
Podlodka77 likes this post
lancelot wrote:There is no need to make another Losharik carrier when they have the Belgorod.
Hole wrote:There will be 12 Boreis. This means between 1.152 and 1.920 warheads. Only for the seabased part of the triad. How much do you want?The-thing-next-door wrote:
The RS-24 carries fewer warheads.
The-thing-next-door likes this post
ghtweight ? The useful payload of the RS-24 missile is 1,250 kilograms, while the R-30 Bulava carries 1,150 kilograms of payload. wrote:
Arrow wrote:
Yes, but Bulava is a light SLBM. It can carry 1150 kg, which is enough for 6 MIRVs, 150kT each. That's enough. On the other hand, Tident II or Sineva can carry a load of 2800 kg, which is almost three times heavier. More decoys and ABM defeating systems can be loaded. The Bulava probably has very advanced fuel anyway and is faster than the older generation SLBM missiles.
GarryB and Broski like this post
Podlodka77 wrote:
Yes, that's true, but Russia has a huge number of ICBM missiles in land-based launchers; in silos and on MZKT trucks. The wikipedia information of 6 warheads of 150 kilotons and 10 warheads of 100 kilotons means nothing. The Russians did not declare and it is probably possible that the rocket carries 3 warheads of 300 kilotons each or 4 of 250 kilotons. My opinion is that the payload is in the range of 800 kilotons to one megaton per ICBM. And that is certainly not a little, and one submarine carries 16 missiles.
We should also add the already ordered 46 RS-28 Sarmat missiles (which do not have to be the final number) which have a payload of 10 tons, which is slightly less than 168 missiles on 7 Ohio submarines with Trident missiles or a total of 4704 tons, while 46 RS-28 the missiles has 4600 tons of payload. Older R-36M2 (modification 5) Voevoda have 8.8 tons of payload.
6 warheads of 150 kilotons falling into a circle with a radius of 3-5 kilometers will cause much more damage than detonating a 1 megaton warhead at one point. the interference of shock waves and the physical laws of the growth of the radius of damage relative to the power do their job. So if you want to break through the protection of a fortified point object, you have to take a heavy warhead, but if you need to hit a vast or extended object, launch a handful of light charges into it and enjoy the fire.Arrow wrote:
Yes, but Bulava is a light SLBM. It can carry 1150 kg, which is enough for 6 MIRVs, 150kT each. That's enough. On the other hand, Tident II or Sineva can carry a load of 2800 kg, which is almost three times heavier. More decoys and ABM defeating systems can be loaded. The Bulava probably has very advanced fuel anyway and is faster than the older generation SLBM missiles.
GarryB and Broski like this post
I know for sure that the designs of Soviet submarines were tested for extreme operating conditions corresponding to a diving depth of over 2 kilometers.Mir wrote:Podlodka77 wrote:I take all the credit for waking up this section...![]()
It's nice that people get away from the special military operation.
And let me add that Russia announced in May that it tested the K-561 Kazan at the maximum depth of application, and that depth is 600 meters. That's twice as much as diesel-electric submarines.
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14672145
The working depth for project 885/885M and 949A submarines is 520 meters. For project 971 submarines, it varies from variant to variant and ranges from 480 to 520 meters.
You can not trust these figures at all. As an example the K-278 Komsomolets (Mike)with an inner titanium hull was designed to reach depths of 1200+ meters. Some sources (besides Wikipedia) gives some interesting figures regarding the Lira/Alfa class saying it could reach depths just short of that at 1160 meters, but the test depth in Wikipedia is given at something like 400 meters!
Scorpius wrote:
I know for sure that the designs of Soviet submarines were tested for extreme operating conditions corresponding to a diving depth of over 2 kilometers.
Big_Gazza, owais.usmani and Broski like this post
I'm not confusing anything. My parents worked at the enterprises that built these submarines and took part in these tests. I repeat once again: these were tests of individual structures, and they are quite explicable by the military approach to the reliability of structures, when the margin of safety should be at least 100% of the nominal operational loads.AMCXXL wrote:Scorpius wrote:
I know for sure that the designs of Soviet submarines were tested for extreme operating conditions corresponding to a diving depth of over 2 kilometers.
I doubt it, I think you are confusing 2000 meters with 2000 feet (about 600 meters)
On Aug. 4, 1984, the Soviet nuclear-powered submarine K-278 Komsomolets (Mike class) reached a record submergence depth of 1,027 meters in the Norwegian Sea. At a depth of 800 meters the submarine made a torpedo salvo. Nobody had done anything like this before, or since after. Even present-day submarines cannot go deeper than 600 meters.
GarryB, Hole, owais.usmani and Broski like this post
GarryB, Hole and Broski like this post
GarryB and Big_Gazza like this post
While I do agree that Russias heavy ICBMs will make up for the lack of potency of thier ballistic missile submarines, I forsee that SLBMs will likely increase in potency with the dawn of a multipolar world order owing to thier ability to strike at pindostan from unexpected angles and with less warning than say the Sarmat. Hence when the treaties go out the window being able to rapidly increase the number of submarine carried warheads is important and the lightweight Bulava does not offer that capability.
6 warheads of 150 kilotons falling into a circle with a radius of 3-5 kilometers will cause much more damage than detonating a 1 megaton warhead at one point.
Podlodka77 likes this post
The U.S can set up radar units and listening posts in South America to detect a FOB approaching from the South.GarryB wrote:in fact a fractional orbital bomb over the US knocking out all their radar will mean missiles coming from any direction will be a surprise.
|
|