The K-84 Ekaterinburg strategic submarine of the Project 667BDRM/Dela IV class of the Northern Fleet conducted a successful launch of a R-29RM Sineva/SS-N-23 missile at 15:20 MSK (11:20 UTC) on September 9, 2006. The missile was launched from a surfaced submarine from an ice-covered polar region toward the Chizha test site at the Kanin Peninsula. The three warheads that the missile was reported to carry successfuly reached their targets.
The launch is reported to be the first launch from an ice-covered region since August 25,1995 (which was a launch of a R-39/SS-N-20 missile from a Project 941/Typhoon submarine "Severstal"). Previous launch of a R-29RM missile was conducted on June 30, 2006.
[Update 10/28/06: Corrected information about the type of launch - the missile was launched from the surface, not from under the ice.]
The book
Comments
Is there any significance of Sineva's launch? I wonder if Sineva could be used for longer time!
I don't think there is any particular significance of this launch. Just another test (this time from under ice). As I understand, Project 667BDRM submarines and Sineva missiles will be around for about ten more years.
Well Pavel, is there any other SLBM that could be deployed in the new strategic submarines if Bulava project failed or take much longer time to finish all the flight tests.
Arming the Borey class with a different SLBM will likely require a significant redesign of the hull, so it is best avoided. Since there are no indications that the Bulava design is completely unsuitable for deployment, I think it will be put in production regardless of the duration of its development.
I don't see why the Bulava project may fail. At the very worst, it will take a year or two more than currently planned to complete it. It won't be the first time.
The missile was launched from the "Yekaterinburg" SSBN.
The exact date of the SS-N-20 launch mentioned above was August 25, 1995.
Thank you. I updated the entries.
Always pleased to be of help. There has been another SLBM launch today, this time from the Pacific, according to Ivanov. That should be an SS-N-18 launched from "St. George the Victorious", but this hasn't been confirmed as yet.
Ivanov has also said something rather disturbing, specifically that there are three non-strategic submarines at sea with nuclear weapons on board. If true, this would be a highly unwelcome return to Soviet practice. However, he simultaneously claimed that five SSBNs are on patrol at this moment, which seems somewhat unlikely to me.
Here is a link to a "Kommersant" note about this:
http://www.kommersant.ru/index-news-y.html?id=106574
As far as I understated him (that is a little bit hard), he referred to submarines in readiness status. That’s not equivalent to say that they are patrolling.
James:
Kolokol:
Any confirmation on Russian fleet submarines now carrying tactical nuclear weapons? If so, any thoughts on why this policy was changed? I can't see any practical advantage, and many, many disadvantages, for Russia in this decision, if true. Thoughts?
Frank Shuler
USA
Confirmation? No, We just have the complex paragraphs from Mr. I.
Kolokol:
Complex indeed!
Please pass along any information you receive on this matter. This would be a big change.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank, I was joking about the usually almost no-understandable declarations from Mr. I. Sorry. Anyway, everyone here who have some information piece should link it.
Regards.
Kolokol:
I have found that sometimes Mr. Ivanov remarks lose meaning in translation. At least in my humble translations. (smile) I don't think his quoted words to the affect, Russia has three nuclear torpedo submarines at sea actually means the submarines are carrying nuclear weapons. In my reading, he draws the classification distinction between ballistic missile nuclear submarines and nuclear torpedo submarines. The later is what I would call a "fleet" submarine, such as an Akula or Victor III (NATO designation).
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank Maybe. Some deployed Project 949 Antey (Oscar-II class, NATO designation) have some nuclear P-700 Granit “carrier-killers”. Just thoughts.
Kolokol:
The return of the Oscar II class with nuclear weapons would be of great international significance. This would signal a big change in naval policy between Russia and the United States. Big, very big!
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank: Is there a "naval policy between Russia and the United States"? I would say that no one really cares about those submarines, with or without nuclear weapons.
It would be interesting to know something about operational status and activities of Anteys
Pavel:
Respectfully disagree. I think the “handshake agreement” on no tactical nuclear weapons at sea between the United States and Russia is very significant to all parties. Of course there is a “naval policy between Russia and the United States”. No military service of either country is closer than their navies. The exchange of information, intelligence, and general goodwill between the Russian and US Navy is unsurpassed in relations between our two countries. Why put that goodwill at risk by placing nuclear weapons on submarines unilaterally. How would Russia benefit from such a change in policy?
Frank Shuler
USA
What I'm saying is that if there is any significance to the alleged deployment of nuclear cruise missiles on submarines, it's symbolic. It's not a kind of symbol that I would like to see, though (I think we would agree on that).
Pavel, I agree the deployment of nuclear cruise missiles on an Oscar II or, say, nuclear torpedoes on a Russian Victor III “attack” submarine are indeed only symbolic. I also agree with you that the symbolism is misplaced. The intriguing question is, why? Why, at this time would Russia set aside a policy that has been to her advantage to embrace this course of action? Internal politics? The Russian Navy flexing its muscles to impress the Budget Gods at the expense of the Strategic Rocket Force? Thoughts?
Frank Shuler
USA