Pavel, I really like a nuclear arms free world. But I think until other countries maintain nuclear arms, Russia has no option but to maintain a nuclear deterrent! I am in real doubt that other powers will ever agree to give up nuclear arms. As far as your chart is concerned I think projected figures are quite viable! Well Pavel, do you really believe that Topol-M will be MIRVing after 2009?

I completely agree with Parimal: I think nuclear weapons, at least in the eyes of the Government, is what makes Russia different from, say Indonesia, and allows (?) to leverage our power on neighbours. It seems to me that the major argument is political and not economical or military aspect of developing nuclear weapons.

I'm, in fact, not sure that nuclear weapons do anything to "leverage our power". Not to mention that it would be useful to find out first why Russia needs that leverage, if it needs it.

Do you think Russia doesn't need nuclear weapon at all? Or as a nuclear deterrent exactly? And what status it would have in this case if not a deterrent?

Pavel, a RATIONAL quantities of nukes could be considered even as 'peacekeepers'.

An example of modern history: the relationships between India and Pakistan become more reasonable during past few years, where these two states show their ability to own the nukes.

And history after WWII, also, show even bigger example of 'nuclear containment'.

Dear Pavel. I have a doubt about the “new” SLBM. According your graphics, there will be around 100 SLBM. Assuming 72 Bulava, the rest of new launchers have to be Sineva, and around 30. That means 2 Dolphins with 32 Sineva. Right?

I assumed eight Project 955 sumbarines, which will give the navy 96 missiles. As I understand, the paln is to retire all Project 667BDRM subs.

So, why they will produce 12 Sinevas this year. Assuming a life-period of 15 years, they can be hold up to 2022. The Strategic Forces are still wasting precious and scarce resources!!

Mentioned above trifling 96 SLBMs "Bulava" on eight SSBNs "Borey" should unanimously carry between six and ten warheads per missile. Thus Russian Navy would have about 576-960 retaliatory warheads targeted exclusively at US cities. This is very primitive nuclear strategy from 1950s but nothing more advanced isn't accessible now for penurious Russia in this area...

Warheads targeted at US cities is indeed old school. More damaging would be the EMP produced by detonating nukes on top of ones country and voila!!! welcome to the non-electronic age.
Regarding Delta IV according to warfare.ru three of this class have come out of recent overhauls: K 18 Karelia, K 117 Bryansk, K 114 Tula. The last two having re-entered the Navy in 2006, with Karelia scheduled for overhaul 2005-2006. They maybe scrapped but not any time soon, especially after refit.

Kolokol:
I have yet to disagree with you, but here it is. I do not think the Strategic Forces are wasting scarce resources by procuring 12 Sinevas this year. Is there any alternative? Is Bulava ready right now? What is the Navy to put on their recently overhauled Delta IV's? The Sinevas are holding the fort sort of speak.

Yes Boris.I must retire my comment. It seems that some “Delta IV” will be deployed up to around 2020. Anyway, it seems unrealistic to have 8 Borey comissioned around 2015. Furthermore 667BDRM are relatively new vessels (1986-1991). With correct maintenance and some “canibalizzation” it will be no dificult to keep some of them bettleworty. In total around a stable number of 8-10 SSBN seems available. Let’s now assume 48 Sineva and 72 Bulava circa 2020.

I am starting to guess that entire "Bulava" project is an example of wasting resources policy. This new SLBM is now delayed, unproven, and probably underfunded.
Much more cost-effective way was to deploy "Sineva" as a sole future SLBM for Delta IV and "Borey" boomers. It is well proven, immediately accessible and has better characteristics than "Bulava".
Well, there is a big mess in Russian military-financial planning!

Besides Russian Delta IV submarines should remain in service well into 2030s! Contemporary built US Ohio-class boomers will be decommissioned in 2030-2039 timeframe.

Unlike US Ohio-class boomers Delta III(some of which are from same era) did not receive the same TLC lets say. Hopefully Delta IV's are getting it.
Pavel Podvig:
Do you know if like Wiki suggests a land based Bulava is on the works? Wiki gives 3 demoninations for Bulava: Bulava-M(morskoy)sea-based, Bulava-30 and Bulava-47. Do you know what the latter two are?

Anybody:
Re: Project 935/latter 955
Bark was bigger(height wise) than Bulava. Did conversion from Bark/935 to Bulava/955 shave off a little of the hump?(ie: Ohio-class are humpless) Or did it just refit launch system? Given the smaller size of Bulava, have any concrete steps been taken in order to minimize size of 955?

Magnificent idea how to overcome any US anti-missile systems!
Simply Russian SSBNs must resume constant patrols close to the US shores as USSR did after American GLCM and Pershing II missiles deployment in Western Europe beginning 1983.

"Simply Russian SSBNs must resume constant patrols close to the US shores as USSR did after American GLCM and Pershing II missiles deployment in Western Europe beginning 1983."

And America would have no trouble shadowing those one or two boomers with their own SSNs, and, if the order were given, sinking them within minutes. They wouldn't pose a credible deterence. They'd be far better off under the ice, or in their own bastions, if the Russian bastion system of boomer defence is still viable.

"And America would have no trouble shadowing those one or two boomers with their own SSNs, and, if the order were given, sinking them within minutes."

BS, Vincent!

Borey-class boomers will be as quiet as US Seawolf-class subs. Therefore US Navy won't be able to detect and track them on the open ocean at all. Each "Borey" can launch all its SLBMs in a matter of minutes. So, it is impossible for US Navy to destroy it in time. In fact all US Navy bases in CONUS would be destroyed in ten minutes after one Russian boomer strike. In such situation it would be much easier for all remaining Russian SSBNs to strike at US targets.

Do you really think present Russian boomers are some Yankee-class noise junk? Don't try to persuade Russian Navy admirals to accept some "bastion-type" defense posture. I know it would be very nice for USN to hunt all Russian subs long away from US home waters. Forget about it, buddy!

PS. US Ohio-class boomers still patrol near Russian home waters almost twenty years after Cold War ended. It is high time for Russia to do the same, isn't it?

Gentlemen:

In 2015-18, Russian will have a strategic inventory of delivery systems that will include 150 Topol-M series ICBMs, five Borey-Class submarines (plus the Rs. Yuriy Dolgorukiy perhaps as a trials ship), and fifty Blackjack and Bear bombers. These delivery systems will host 1500-1700 nuclear warheads. That’s it.

If Russian doesn’t have 150 Topol-M missiles by 2018, another existing ICBM (SS-19) will still be in operation to make up the warhead difference in the totals until the Topol-Ms are delivered. That’s it.

If Russia doesn’t have all five Borey-Class submarines in inventory at this time, the difference will be made up by a Project 667BDRM, Delta IV or two until all the Borey’s can be completed. That’s it.

I doubt more that 20 Blackjack bombers will ever be operational but one of the greatest airplanes ever built, the Tu-95 Bear, will complete the 50 bomber fleet all armed with a new strategic cruise missile. That’s it.

This is the plan. It’s President Putin’s plan. The Kremlin is implementing this plan in a thoughtful and precise manner. The plan seems to be well funded and represented within the MOD. It also seems to be well represented in the Duma. You may not agree with this plan. In fact, you may vehemently disagree. But, that the plan.

Don’t blame the United States for “the Plan”.

Frank Shuler
USA

I don’t think most 667BDRM will be retired before 2020. In fact, three of them were very recently refitted and therefore they can “live” for 15 more years. Respect to the “ukraininian SS-19”. They can replace older ones or can work as “spares sources”. We don’t know. But in both cases they are useful to extend the life of UR-100NUTTH to around 2020. “Old systems” will be a minority after 2015. Right, but some of these systems will still be here and they will do efficiently the job.

Frank Shuler:
Your plan assestment is IMO 100% on the money. Maybe not quite 100%, until recently the low numbers of warheads on inventory puzzled me. Now I think they will be made up by: a smaller more modern, cheaper land version of Bulava( as compared to Topol-M) When I entered this scenario into the plan it all of the sudden makes a lot of sense. Not to mention the fact that as a system(Bulava) it has been enginered as a MIRV from the get go.

Boris Buliak:

I disagree on the Bulava option. Engineering a sea-based missile for land use is far more difficult than one would think. There is no need to really EMP-proof a submarine launched missile like you would need to do for a silo or road ICBM missile, for example. If not so, the US would have introduced Trident to the land based American ICBM force long ago.

Here’s the point. Russia has a plan; Russia is working the plan. Why? Why this plan? Why accept a strategic inventory of 1500 warheads (that where I think Russia is headed). This plan is the brainchild of President Putin. No one can ever accuse him of being uninformed on military matters; either within the United States or Russia herself. He ran the KGB for heaven’s sake. He is probably the most informed national leader Russia could ever have. What does he know we don’t?

Frank Shuler
USA

Quote: “Russian officials have reported that land-mobile versions of the missile will also be developed”,

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/bulava.htm

Pavel also mentioned the posibility.

Sorry. I forgot to put the link in my previous post.

http://russianforces.org/blog/2005/01/mirved_topolm_or_bulava.shtml

Yes, there was some talk about land-based Bulava, but now I tend to think it was just MITT propaganda.

It's probable. But (coincidentally?) it have roughly the same dimensions and loads of the Pioneer. I would not totally discard the option in face of NMD deployments in Eastern Europe.

Frank Shuler:
Your last sentence is the 64 000 dollars question. For all the marbles I'm stickin' with the Bulava option. I've been known to have been wrong before. I think this was Putin's plan all along, but since the system isn't operational yet all he gots to show for is a red face.

Boris Buliak:

To be honest, I can’t see any “real” advantage to the Bulava over the Topol-M. The real question is will Russia MIRV the SS-27s after 2009 (START Treaty ending) and, if so, will she only MIRV the road mobile missiles or the silo rockets as well. I guess we’ll see.

Frank Shuler
USA

First I assume that Pavel have more information than us. So the most probable explanation is “MITT propaganda”.
The only advantage of a land-base Bulava can be no-minor: the COST, as her weight is just the 80% af a Topol-m it “may be” less expensive, but off course it depends on the technology used. But given recent failures, I start to doubt on such an option and as a result, to kill the INF and deploy a two-stage rocket will be the only option.

Kolokol:
You make good points for Bulava, yet your last sentence sounds like capitulation. True, Bulava has encountered some problems(I hope this is indication of an advanced system, with probably even higher survivability than Topol-M), but what guarantee do you have that?:
1-Re-developing of ss-20 is not also going to encounter some mishap?
2-Would it have been worth it, to break a treaty which at least gave you parity with the Americans((never mind the rest of the world, of course not literally)) and then be involved in a "numbers game" with the Americans?

Frank Shuler:
Why go thru the process of MIRVing the Topol-M, when Bulava should be coming into production with MIRVs already? That saving plus the aditional saving that Bulava 'should'(if Bulava turns out to be more expensive than Topol-M forget it)bring plus its smaller size and advanced survivability does it for me. Whether it would do it for the Russians is another matter.

Boris Buliak:

My contention is the SS-27s will remain a single warhead missile and, when equipped with the “new hypersonic whiz-bang maneuverable warhead” will satisfy all perceived Russian security needs. I think the move to MIRV the Topol-M fleet is only politics at this point and far from actual fact. Again, what does a multiple warhead ICBM do that isn’t accomplished by a single warhead missile? The rest is just a numbers game…

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler:
On ss-27s we're on agreement. My speculation about land based Bulavas is merely an attempt to try and guess how the figures you mention of 1500 warheads could be expanded to 1700-2200. Two questions come to mind:
Would the US voulntarilly or by treaty come down on the numbers of warheads it wants to keep?ie: 1500 like Russia....
Or, would Russia feel inclined to 'climb up' to US figure? A runaway arms-race notwithstanding.

Boris Buliak

Actually the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (1988) specifically called for the removal and destruction of the SS-20 missiles by name as it did for both the Pershing II and the BGM-109G (GLCM). The treaty also spelled out the removal and destruction of short ranged weapons, again by name.

Article III
1. For the purposes of this Treaty, existing types of intermediate-range missiles are:
(a) for the United States of America, missiles of the types designated by the United States of America as the Pershing II and the BGM-109G, which are known to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by the same designations; and
(b) for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, missiles of the types designated by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as the RSD-10, the R-12 and the R-14, which are known to the United States of America as the SS-20, the SS-4 and the SS-5, respectively.
2. For the purposes of this Treaty, existing types of shorter-range missiles are:
(a) for the United States of America, missiles of the type designated by the United States of America as the Pershing IA, which is known to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by the same designation; and
(b) for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, missiles of the types designated by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as the OTR-22 and the OTR-23, which are known to the United States of America as the SS-12 and the SS-23, respectively.
Frank Shuler
USA

Boris Buliak:
My comments above referenced your previous post under topic heading:

[Cosmos-2393 ended operations?]

[Just to show that one good deed deserves another(while on ACM subject)if one were really to be technical, latest production ss-20 had a range greater than the 5000km maximum range for medium range weapons. Russia wasn't a stickler for this detail and scrapped all ss-20s.]

On to numbers, I think the limit on 1700-2200 operational warheads agreed to by the Moscow Treaty is firm in American thinking. It appears all efforts in the Reliable Replacement Warhead project is geared to that number especially if the United States is, and I now believe this is true, getting out of the nuclear cruise missile business. If Russia makes the commitment not to MIRV its ICBM fleet, I think the US will download all land based Minutemen (and its successor) to single warheads. Perhaps, that would result in a cut in the 2200 before mentioned totals, but, it would also mean Russia would be farther away from its desired inventory of 1700 warheads. Politics are too far in the future to allow an intelligent guess what is possible after the 2012 deadline of SORT. I am eternally optimistic these numbers can be reduced.

Frank Shuler
USA

Hi to everyone!

I had one thought concerning the cost of maintanence and operating ICBMs. Is it possible to roughtly determine this? And one other thing in connection with this. We all know that the Russian ICBM force is decaying. Now, this brings out the question of funds used to run some of the closing bases. Assuming that it stays in the hands of rocket forces, the question arises if it could be used to boost the production of some aditional Topol-Ms? All this is of course if the sums mentioned are "big" enough, otherwise it is my foolishness :) Any thoughts?

Ivan:

In April 2005, the United States had over 9,000 US Air Force personnel to man an inventory of only 500 Minuteman III ICBMs. The personel cost for maintaining this weapon system is staggering all by itself. However, if the history of closing existing American military bases to achieve “efficiencies” in the defense budget is any indication of the situation in Russia, I doubt any base closings will allow a single ruble to be reinvested in the SRF.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler:
I just wish you're right. But, unfortunately there's still a gap between stated goals of SORT 1700-2200. Unless this is superceded by a treaty with lower numbers(say 1000-1500) Russia must do something to fill the gap. Russia should be concerned about recent studies on the US about Russia's vulnerability and get this, the study claims nuclear war to be winnable with a crushing first strike against Russia and China combined. This study was presented to congress by Lieber and Press, without an opposing view. After this presentation to congress another study group throughly dismantled all arguments for this study, but they did not do so to congress. Is there any doubt that the cold war is not over?

Boris Buliak:

Lieber & Press wrote a paper that is little more than an editorial piece published in a prestigious journal. While I certainly don’t wish to demean their opinion or challenge their qualifications to make such an opinion, it is in the end only their opinion. It was not an opinion “requested by the US Congress” or taken intellectually without opposing views. All wars are by definition uncontrollable. Once the “dogs” are released, no war is predictable. My favorite quote from the noted military historian and theorist, Carl von Clausewitz is, "The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan." There is no perfect nuclear war plan that produces victory at no cost. Again, what argument between Russia and the United States is worth "victory" at the cost of twenty American cities? None.

Frank Shuler
USA

Thus we're on agreement. I believe it's unbecoming for a 'strategic partner' to be talking sneaky first attack. The lower house of Reps. also seems to be wanting to antagonize Russia aproving Ukraines and Georgias entry to Nato. Just for a second put yourself on the Russians shoes and tell me if you don't feel disrespected. Nowhere is a friendly Bush to veto some of this chickenhawks and show Russian he cares. Next step, Russia wont care either.

Boris Buliak:

Today, NATO really isn’t any longer a true military alliance but more of a global security organization. NATO has no enemies; at least in Europe. What the European Union provides in financial stability, NATO provides in security. That’s why a ticket into NATO is so desirable to countries around the edges. I believe its expansion is progressive, worthwhile and inevitable. I farther think the expansion of NATO will soon encompass even non-European countries in its membership. Russia can retreat to isolation or recognize an opportunity. I have boldly predicted Russia will one day join NATO and I stand by those convictions. The lure of Russian energy and consumer markets with EU financial and distribution capabilities make the ingredients for a compelling partnership. That “partnership” will include NATO. Just my opinion.

Frank Shuler
USA

I am in agreement with Frank, Russia will not replace the 550kt maneuvering RV with 3 smaller 100kt standard RV's, or even 6. Given the extremely small size of the Topol-M force, the MARV warhead is absolutely necessary to make the Topol-M deterrent credible in the face of ABM systems.

The British government today made the political decision to “renew” Trident by agreeing to both building new nuclear ballistic missile submarines and to participating in the American program refurbishing the existing D-5 system (to remain military capable until the 2030-40 timeframe) and to jointly work on its future successor.

Does this have any real implications for Russian military policy? Thoughts?

Frank Shuler
USA

Does anyone knows what will going happen with the nuclear powered missile cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov"? Will be requiped with land attack conversional missiles (SS-N-21)?????

Brezhnev:

I have seen no documentation that would suggest the SS-N-21 missile system is to be deployed with the Rs. Nakhimov when it returns from refit. However, there has been much speculation the SS-N-26 Yakhont (or perhaps the “Brahmos) system will be installed in place of the preexisting SS-N-19 “Shipwreck”. Interestingly, it seems there is no conventional version of the “Shipwreck” missile and Russia has struggled replacing this missile on both the Kirov cruisers and the Oscar submarines. Does such a conventional SS-N-19 exist? If so, would not that be the weapon of choice?

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler:

The curent SS-N-19 that operates in Kirovs and Oscar IIs is the conversional version which is primed with 750kg HE warhead. SS-N-19 has a maximum range of 550km and yakhont with a tiny warhead of 200kg has a range of 280km! So I am asking you why the Russian prefers a less capable missile for platform like Admiral Nakhimov. Also note that Nakhimov has a great space for islalling cruise missiles forward. SS-N-21 is too similar with US tomahawk and I dont know why russian navy has no land attack missiles in surfase vessels, this is madness!!Nakhimos could take at least 80 of then in place of Granit.

Brezhnev:

Thanks for updating me on the conventional SS-N-19 missile system.

I honestly think when the nuclear option for the SS-N-19 “Shipwreck” ended; the role of the Oscar II fleet and, to a certain extent, the Kirov’s ended as well. The Oscar is an incredible submarine, quite an achievement in construction and design. But this deep water submarine was built as a “carrier killer” armed with the nuclear “Shipwreck” missile system and guided by a dedicated satellite system for tracking & control. Today, both the satellite system and the nuclear SS-N-19’s are gone. The Oscar is simply a huge submarine and doesn’t seem particularly suitable for use with a short range land attack missile in the littorals. I don’t know any warship in the world that looks more impressive that the nuclear Kirov’s. But again, what role for these ships? Sending a Kirov to attack some hostile land target without proper air support makes little sense in today’s world. It would also need a significant escort of destroyers and frigates to provide an anti-submarine screen. It is an extremely expensive ship to run & operate in a Russian Navy that is chronically short of funds. I fear the role of these ships in the future will continue to be as flagships of the fleets and little more.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler

The conversional SS-N-19 is fully operetional now and I am unable to understand your base of thinking at all. US navy has both Ticoderoga and Arleigh Burge in land attack role -lets live out the DDX- and this is a great advance in you county's navy. Tomahawk missile is the only thing that make USN a great power. Obviously you can send a dozen of Tomahawks make the dirty job (destroy enemy air diffence) and then the F-18s to continue. Is cheaper to lost a Tomahawk than a full armed F-18 with the pilot in it. Tomahawks are cleaning the area and then is enough free space for F-18s to have safe party time! As for the Russian navy I have to inform you that Ad. Masorin and the next Russian prezident Sergei Ivanov announched the intention of constaction nuclear powered aircraft carriers 2 or for but is more probable the 2 vessels - so the land attack oriented kirovs will have air protection. Adding in that scenario the S-300 system of 96 on them plus the Kortik masive short range AAW missiles and the 6 Kastan CIWS. So to sink a KIROV is not so easy... I think is a suicide mission. But you forget that the Granat SS-N-21 like the US tomahawk is a strategic weapon with a 3000km max range. That means that a Kirov or a Ticoderoga can safely and very far from the enemy coast and land fire the cruise missile. SS-N-21 is operetional now in Acula SSNs. Let me give you an example.. If an Acula fires its Granat from a distance of 1000km from enemy coast this granat can reach a maximun range 2000km to heat a target in the enemy inland. Because 1000km + 2000km = 3000km which is the range of granat. So i ask why is so wrong to install this weapon in the Nakhimov? Also Nakhimov is not so old vessel is 19 years old and I dont know why you say that will be scrapped in the near future. Do you know if the Russian navy plans to develop a new DDG of 7000t or more? Finally do you know how much Brahmos the Nakhimov will be armed with if they finally consider to install Brahmos as you already said?

Brezhnev:

Your points are all well made. However, listen to my reasoning. When was the last time the Russian (or Soviet Navy for that matter) fired a shot in anger? Thirty years? Forty? Sixty? To be honest, I can’t think of a single time since the end of the Great Patriotic War have “Russian” warships been in combat? The last time in history a Russian “fleet” sailed to battle was in 1905 under Admiral Zinovy Petrovich Rozhestvensky. Building nuclear aircraft carriers is a tremendous expense in a Navy struggling to keeps existing ships at sea. Russia needs to do what she does best. Build submarines for strategic and fleet operations. Build frigates to patrol your coast. Update the finest tactical naval bomber in the world today, the Tu-22M3 “Backfire” and build its successor. Put satellites for reconnaissance and naval intelligence gathering into space. I sincerely believe this is a better approach for Russia.

Too many times when we look at the military capabilities of a warship we only look at the armaments. We say, this missile has this range or this warhead has this destructive capability. A warship is much more. The Kirov-class battlecrusiers are such a case in point. Even today, they look so impressive, so powerful. Yet, they haven’t had their basic electronics updated since the early 1990’s and no Kirov has gone to sea with its full compliment of 715 personal in years. I have no idea what new missile systems will be installed during her refit but there is much work to be done here before the Rs. Nakhimov reemerges as a “combat” vessel. Just my thoughts.

By the way, it is not the Tomahawk missile that makes the USN “great”, it’s her sailors and traditions.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler

I can't imagine that the future of Russian fleet will be SSBNs combined with coastal frigates! You mean that in 2015 the russian navy will have only motor boats project 20380 corvettes and small project 22350 frigates alongside with new SSBNs? No DDGs?

Brezhnev:

Think of it this way, what can Russia build in the next eight years? (2015) The Yuriy Dolgorukiy must be finished and its Bulava missile perfected. The Aleksandr Nevskiy and Vladimir Monomakh must be completed and the Delta IV boats (Project 667BDRM) transitioned in the fleet until all the Borey’s have arrived. A successor to the Severodvinsk nuclear attack submarine design must be started. Akula II and Oscar II boats must be refitted and rearmed. Additional Sankt Petersburg (Lada Class) will be built. Admiral Nakhimov and the Petr Velikiy must be refitted. New Russian surface combatants have to be designed and built and frigates are the first need. Remember, Russia doesn’t need one fleet, it needs four. Thirty-two newly designed frigates are a good first step. Will all this happen by 2015? No.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler

You are right, but is easier to modernize current ships than to built new one.(according to the Russian reality). The first project 22350 will be ready in 2010 and the second is not lay down yet!! I wonder when the 32th frigate will be finished!! In 2100!!! So according to my logic the heavy Russian units (KIROV, SLAVA& UDALOY)should be land attack and AAW vessels like the Ticoderoga. I wish to see a naval version of Kh-101/2!! So this modernization will leave some time before the new vessel will enter into service.
And a little different question.... Why the US navy chosed the Arleigh burge instead of the nuclear powerd Virginia modified CGNs with AEGIS ? Virginia with MK-41 and Aegis would be a perfect ship!!!

Brezhnev: From now on I won't be approving comments with more than one exclamation mark.

Brezhnev:

Don’t despair. Remember, the “new” Russian Navy has only flown the Andreevsky ensign since January 17, 1992. Building a modern, professional navy is all about the quality of sailors you enlist and the officers that lead them. All this takes time. The design and construction of warships takes just as long. I honestly think the Kremlin has taken a wise approach in rebuilding the navy and set logical goals and timelines. Highest priority is to rebuild the Delta IV boats (Project 667BDRM) and its “Russian manufactured” SS-N-23 missile. Next build its replacement the Borey-class with its Bulava system. Next, modernize the Akula II fleet. Next modernize the Oscar IIs; if I needed any conventional cruise missile land-attack capacity that’s where I would put it. Build new frigates. Build Project 677, Lada submarines. Design a new nuclear fleet boat to supplement and replace the Akula boats. Updating the Kirov-class and the Udaloy destroyers would be last. I wouldn’t waste time or rubles on the Delta III, Sierra-II or Slava cruisers. Lastly, I would sell the Chinese all the Sovremennyy destroyers left in the fleet.

I think the US Navy lost favor with the USS Virginia-class nuclear powered cruisers for the same reason the Russian Navy struggles with the Kirov’s. I think nuclear reactor technology is expensive and technically challenging. Sometimes too challenging for the need. The US could build two AEGIS cruisers for the price of one Virginia and keep both at sea longer. Just makes sense.

Frank Shuler
USA

Pavel Podvig

I am sorry I will not do it again. Pavel by the way do you know if is true the rumors of develoing a new version of Granit(Granit 2)?
Also do you know anything about the modernization of Admiral Nakhimov and if you have any image for the new project 22350 frigate. Will the Kh-101 strategic cruise missile be introduced as a naval based cruised missile in project 885 SSN?

Frank Shuler

Recently I read a topic about project 885 SSNs in Wikipedia, -which I believe is an accurate source- which mentions that except the Yakhonts they will will carry SS-N-21 SLCMs and probably instead of them the navalized version of Kh-101 cruise missile. I have very few information about the Kh-101 -dimentions , nuclear playload etc-but I know that is equvelant to the US AGM-129 and has a range of 5000km. Do you know when the first project 885 will be completed? Also do you know if the Russian navy plan to evelop a new destroyer sized vessel? I believe that only the 22350 is too small for being the major Russian vessel. I believe very mush to your knowledge and I wish to see your comments for what I read in wikipedia.

Brezhnev:

Of course all this is speculation on my part but I suspect the Project 885 Severodvinsk- class nuclear powered submarine had ended. There is the murmur of some continuing work, post 1996, being done by the builder Sevmashpredpriyatiye, Severodvinshk but little to confirm. This is the wrong design for the Russian Navy today; the same reason the US Seawolf-class was terminated after only three boats and gave way to the US Virginia class. Russia needs small, agile nuclear submarines to guard its ballistic missile fleet and not a handful of deep-ocean boats that really have no mission today.

Russia certainly could “navalize” its Kh101 (the Kh-102 is generally referenced as the nuclear version) missile. While all this is possible, it doesn’t seem very practical. What adversary would Russia use such a system against? Because of the “curse of geography”, Russia is a nation not defined by the sea. While a robust nuclear deterrent in the form of Russian ballistic missile submarines is a national necessary, a large surface fleet is a luxury. (harsh words, I know) All that being said, eventually Russia will rebuild its ocean going fleet and new destroyers-size vessels will be built. However, there is much to be done before that eventuality takes place. Just my opinion.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler

Your navy has already 50 "Los Angeles" so it doesn't matter to limit in 3 units the Seawolf and to continue with Virginias, but at the same time Russian navy has only 10 Akulas and is a plan to give 2-4 to India, so I believe that a number of max 6 units of 885 will replace Aculas. Of cource a 5000-6000t cheap boat is better for constuction in high numbers -more than 10 units- but I believe that an ocean going boat is steel a nececity. Do you have any information that the project 885 is cancelled and the first of the class "Severodvinsk" will never enter sevice? Also I have to repeat that both Ad. Masorin(which is not a politician and a canditate for president )and Sergei Ivanov are clearly said that the Russian navy will built in future-2015- 2 aircraft carriers, and that means that the Russian navy will not limit its strategic role only in SSBNs. The Sovremmenys with boilers on it and the Udaloys with no "weapons" on it "just as Spruance at their first appearence in 1974" are getting old and must be replaced with a similar sized vessels. With out DDGs the Russian navy will be only a fleet of a dozen SSBNs and some small ships to escord them and to support them. I am sure that the 22350 frigate is not what theRussian navy absolutely needs. Even France and Italy develops a 7000t DDG the Horizon class and I dont believe a great power like Russia to stay without large ocean going vessels. Note also that in a lot of web pages is confusion about the Tonnage of 22350 frigate, if is 4500t or 8000t, - surelly is 4500t - but Masorin loves the ocean navy and at the back of his mind has the heavy DDG. Also if Ivanov became a prezident will continue to support navy, note that before 2 or 3 moths he underlined that the "Ad. Nakhimov" will be modernized because the funds have been founded. 2 modernized Kirovs and 12 new 8000 DDG is a reasonable and realistic goal for the future russian navy.
As for Kh-101 the cruise missile if you ask against whom will be used I will ask the Bulava against whom will be used? And also the French strategic SCALP navale against whom will be used?

Brezhnev:

Russia needs to deploy two fleet boats (Akula class for example) to guard each strategic missile submarine on patrol. That national need completely commits the entire existing nuclear submarine fleet with the exception of perhaps a Sierra II class submarine or the odd Victor III that still make steam. Russia needs modern nuclear fleet submarines that can be procured in number to meet these obligations; that is why a new design is a necessity. My comments about the stoppage of work (or long slowdown since 1996) are based on open sourced reporting in various publications. I have no personal knowledge this is true.

It is unrealistic to compare the naval needs of Russia to the United States or even France and Italy for that matter. These nations are dependent on the sea for their commerce and prosperity; Russia is not. It’s not about having the navy you would want but the navy you can afford at the expense of other national needs. If the choice is 12 new DDG 7000t destroyers or building SS-27 Topol-M ICBMs what is the priority?

Bulava hopefully is being designed and produced never to be used. (just as the American Trident)

To my knowledge the French SCALP is not a “strategic missile”. I take that to mean a nuclear capable system. Am I not correct?

Remember, Sergei Ivanov and Masorin are politicians running for the presidency of Russia. I would not take their commitment to building nuclear aircraft carriers to heart but, I guess, we’ll see.

Good conversation.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler

As far as I know Masorin is not running for the prezidency. Also I said that Scalp is a Strategic weapon because has a 1000km range in both surface and sub launched variants. Theoretically in emergecy situation SCALP could possibly receive a nuke warhead, but I believe that is the range that makes a cruise missile "srategic" or substrategic weapon. Your tomahawk even without the 200kt warhead is clearly considered strategic weapon. As for the 12 destroyers that in my point of view is a nessecity I don't think that Russian Federation is "Ugada", I believe that has enough money to start a shipbuilting programm of "capital" vessels. I know very well that Russian navy is not like USN so 12 units is enough (6 in each fleet North& Pacific). I never said that Russian navy needs 80 units as yours but the coastal navy in not the solution. Do you have any information that the commanders of the Russian navy plans to make the navy coastal force in the future? As for the aircraft carrier I 've seen some line drawings of a future project which seems to be a "stealthier version" of the cancelled "Ulianovsk".I will try to find the site and tell you were it is.
Also I want to ask you about a matter that is a little "historic". I make a research and I want to find a line drawing of a projected missile cruiser with a code (project 1165 Fugas) which was the progenitor of "Kirov" class and as I read she would carry 32-48 Granits. Its unbelievable but as a plan is very intresting to see it. The project 1165 was under development in mid 1970s and if you have any image or line drawing of this mystirious cancelled missile cruiser please post me.

Brezhnev:

I don’t think the US Pentagon thinks of the naval tomahawk or the CALCM carried by B-52H bombers as “strategic weapons” regardless of range. These cruise missiles carry conventional armaments and that is the determining factor as to their classification. If fact, the line between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons has blurred in resent years to the point there is no distinction in US planning. No American President is going to release the use of even small “tactical” nuclear weapons to any commander for theater use. The decision to use such weapons will come only from the White House. I’ll wager the inventory of B-61 bombs now based with NATO is an anarchism that will probably soon end. Who would these weapons be used against? They are just another vesture of the “Cold War’.

I agree completely, to be a great nation, you need a great navy. I also have faith that the Russian Navy will be rebuilt in time to serve that need. However, today there is much to do to achieve that goal. If Russia is seriously committed to naval aviation and the building of a modern nuclear aircraft carrier fleet, then get started by rebuilding and making operational the Rs. Kuznetsov. Russia needs to develop new designs of dedicated carrier aircraft and not just poorly adapted land fighters. Russia needs to begin training the officers and sailors that will man such ships, find out what works and what does not. Russia needs to develop carrier tactics and strategies necessary to use such ships in combat. Russia needs to develop “task force” tactics so escorting warships can be grouped and trained to work with carriers, under many different combat situations. Take the “Admiral Kuznetsov” and use that as your training platform. Until such a commitment is made by the Kremlin, I will continue to be skeptical of future carriers in the Russian Navy. By the way, this is exactly what the Chinese Navy is doing with the old “Varyag”. They are building a new naval culture around carrier aviation one step at a time. It will be interesting to watch their progress.

I’ll keep a watch out for any information on the Project 1165. (Fugas). This was a warship design that was superseded by the Kirov in actual production? Perhaps an informational source might be the US Naval Institute? The USNI, through their publication “Proceedings”, often tracks foreign warship design & development and obviously had a keen interest in Soviet warships. I’ll research and pass on what I learn.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler

I think the story of pr 1165 is like in aviation industry. You had the choice between YF-22 & YF-23. YSAF finally choosed the F-22. At the same logic the Soviet Navy choosed the 1144 instead of 1165.Also in the past there were some projects that were cancelled. For instance in 1959 the 20000t nuclear powered missile cruiser pr 63 which would be a responce to US "Long Beach" was cancelled. I 've seen this project in line drawing but I never seen the 1165, and I was very impressed by the fact that this vessel would carry up to 32 Granits. Someone told me that the Soviet navy planned to develop 2 projects. Alongside with the 1165 they wanted a large nuclear powered antisubmarine vessel and a heavy strice cruiser , the 1165. I think according to my information that the 1144 started its development as a antisubmarine vessel, and at the end the navy decided to unite the ASW vessel and the 1165 in one. This was the project 1144. But I am very curious to see the line drawing of this projected vessel. I also read that alonside with the 32 or more Granits, it would carry the early version of S-300 as the first units of project 1144. So imagine the dimentions of such vessel in order to have enouch space for both 32 Granits and S-300s. I am sure that the 1165 was a larger project that the 1144.
Now back in the today's reality. As you said before the Ad. Nakhimov according to your information will be equiped with Yakhonts instead of Granits. I want to ask you I you know the number of Yakhonts that will be installed in the vessel, 20 or more? Also doy you know if Pyotr Veliki will follow at the same way of modernization. Lastly I don't understant why the navy wants to replace and not to improve the Granits, note that Yakhont is a "small version" of Granit, and by this I mean that Yakhont has the same philosophy as Granit. Before 2000 all the world thought that Granit was the continue of Saddock SS-N-3 and Sandbox SS-N-12, but this prooved wrong. Both Granit and Yakhont have "Mig -21 like" nose and they are Universal weapons. That means that they both can be lauched from under the surface. So why the officials wants to replace the Granit with a less capable weapon that is also for export.Do you have any further details for Nakhimov's modernization? The second vessel of the Kirov class in pacific, the "Admiral Lazarev" will be scapped or will be repaired at the future? As for the Kuznetsov was repaited will even darker Gray color, and from December 2006 is back to service.

Brezhnev:

I think now any conclusion reached on the Admiral Nakhimov’s future armaments would only be highly speculative. There have been no official reports on exactly what changes are to be made to the Kirov cruisers during this dockyard refit. RIA Novosti did have a mention that the Yakkhonts would be fitted to the Oscar II class with multiple missiles installed in each existing launch tube in place of the P-700/SS-N-19 Granit/Shipwreck missile. I find that conclusion speculative as well. However, that speculation lead to the thought the Yakkhonts would find their way to the Kirov as well. The answer is we just don’t know. What we do know however, is the updating of the Admiral Nakhimov and Petr Velikiy is a Russian Navy priority. The decision to cancel the Oscar II submarine Belgorod was made when that boat was 80% complete and done to free up funds for the Nakhimov. In the pacific the Admiral Lazarev (ex-Frunze) is in limbo. The Kremlin announced the ship would be paid off and then later changed their mind but provided no funds for any work or made any comments that would suggest the ship would be reinstated. Perhaps, it will be used as parts for the two remaining Kirov’s? The nuclear reactor suite on this class of cruisers has been plagued with design flaws and accidents since the class was first launched. I suspect it will be quite a challenge to get these ships back to sea.

The Rs. Kuznetsov return to service is also relative. This ship will need much work to be considered a combat vessel and deployable. The US carrier “John F. Kennedy”, just recently decommissioned, was undeployable for the last two or so years of its service life yet still considered “in service”.

I too share your interest in warship design and “what might have been”. Good luck on you pursuit of the 1165.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler

I have already some images from a postwar desjgns, especially the project 24 huge battleship and its varians and the project 82 battlecruiser and I will try to post them to you. It is obvious thet all the "what might have been” designs are much more iteresting than the current. Just compare your ugly "thing" the modern "USS MONITOR" DDX-1000 with the truly interesting and fantastic CG-21 arsenal ship which was cancelled.
I don't understand the arguments and the thinking of Ad. Masorin. Recently I read that the old ASW cruiser "OCAKOV" of Kara class is being modernized, and how is possible someone to consider to modernize very old vessels of 1972 like Ocakov and "Kerz" and to prefere to scrap or "canibalize" a much newer and more capable vessel like the "Admiral Lazarev" "Admiral Lazarev" was putted in service in 1985, and I don't think that is too old such a vessel. Also I want to ask you a theoretical question. The Granit in cold war times had a 500kt nuke warhead, and I want to ask you why a weapon with such warhead is not called strategic. What would be the effects of nuclear Granit warhead in a coastal city in a harbor or if this missile would explode at the middle of a US Carrier battle group? Was the warhead of Granit thermonuclear as the 200kt warhead of tomahawk? The nuclear version of Granit had the same range as the conversional-600km- or more? Finally if Masorin desides to intall Yakhonts in Kirovs or Oscars II this would be a huge mistake. Both USA and Russia keep for the own some special weapons. I mean that you never gonna give your AGM-86 cruise missiles, or the AGM-129(I wonder why the USAF put such weapon out of service) for export, even to your closest allies like UK and State of Israel. At the better situation you will give JASSM to them. By this example I want to underline that is a terrible mistake to replace in the major surface vessels like the Kirovs a missile like the Granit which was never exported to a third country, and to put Yakhont which is a technology that the navy already share with India and probably in the future with China.I think that is time Masorin to be fired, because his decisions are catastrophical for the navy. I forgot to say that i've heard some rumors about an imroved version of Granit that is now under development but I can't confirm,and offcourse we do guesswork now but have you ever read anything about that?

Brezhnev:

A Kara-class cruiser back in the fleet? Amazing. The 'Kynda' (Project 58) class surface warfare cruiser “Admiral Golovko” was recommissioned from reserve in 1995 to serve as the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet. She was last seen underway in July 1996 and is now laid up permanently or has already been scrapped depending on what source you believe. Perhaps the "Ocakov" is being refitted to serve as a flag in the Black Sea Fleet? When we look at the Russian Navy we see the aggregate, the whole. However, the Russian Admiralty sees only the parts, the sums of the whole. While spending rubles on the “Ocakov” seems foolish, having a cruiser-class vessel to “show the flag” in the Black Sea may well be justified on political grounds alone. At this point, Turkey has the dominate navy in the Black Sea and one could argue even Romania, with its new second-hand British frigates, has a more dominant presence that Russia; a situation that must be unacceptable to the Kremlin.

The "Admiral Lazarev" apparently suffered a catastrophic nuclear reactor breakdown as reported in Japanese and Western press. I don’t think this ship will ever be operational again.

Interestingly the CG-21 “Arsenal Ship” concept has been resurrected in spirit by the four refitted Ohio-class submarines that have been turned into cruise missile carriers. Each of these submarines carries 22 launch tubes that can each support seven Tomahawk missile in a new rotary launcher. One submarine can effectively take the place of an entire carrier task force holding targets at risk.

I certainly think a 500kt nuclear Granit missile is “strategic” but I guess the Russian & American Arm Control diplomats disagreed. If one of those missiles fell on me, I wouldn’t be concerned if it was a strategic or only a tactical weapon. (smile)

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler
Firstly I think that was "Admiral Ushakov" Former Kirov that had problem with the nuclear reactor in 1990 in Meditteranean. Also the flagship of Black sea fleet is the Slava class "Moskva", and I don't know why some commaders in the navy maintain 2 Kara class cruisers in service. As I read the Oscakov will be A weapon trainer but I am not sure. The Kertz has no use and I dont know why is still in service. Some new 20380 corvettes will be perfect for the two smaller fleets the Black and Baltic. Both turkish and greek navies are not considered as major naval powers. Aa I know Greece and Turkey are in conflick and the Turkish navy prefers to have its majority of its units in Agean not in black sea. Turkey and Greece are two NATO minor naval powers, that in cold war had the mission of resistance against soviet Black sea fleet at the first hours of coflict until NATO reinforces come.
As for kara class 2 two remaing vessels due to the fact that are not steam poewed but Gas turbined are still surviving.

Brezhnev:

Indeed the “Admiral Ushakov” suffered a “major” reactor incident in the Med in 1990 and has been inactive as a result ever since. Reports indicated both the “Admiral Ushakov” and the "Admiral Lazarev” have been cannibalized for parts to support the two surviving Kirov-class cruisers. Western reports also indicate the reason the “Admiral Kazarev” has been inactive since the early 1990’s was due to a “reactor incident”.

I agreed completely on your opinion regarding the Kara-class. It does seem a waste of valuable resources when funding is so restricted. However, if this vessel is being rebuilt to serve as a training ship, I do see the merits. More than anything now Russia needs to be training the sailors and officers that will one day man its fleet. Perhaps, this is a wise investment after all.

Questions on the Black Sea Fleet: Is the “Moskva” operational and deployable? Ukraine had originally decided to complete the final Russian 'Slava' class cruiser (formerly Admiral Flota Lobov) for its own use, as “Ukrayina’. However, the ship has recently been offered for sale to Russia. Any reports that the Russian Navy will add this ship to its fleet? Also, it is reported that only one submarine is operational with the Russian Black Sea fleet, a Kilo-class. Can you confirm?

Sorry if I created confusion with my statement about “raising steam” This is just a nautical expression of a warship getting “under way” regardless of propulsion.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler
"Moskva" is fully opperational as the flagship of the Blck sea fleet. If I am correct in June 2006 Moskva accompanied with a Krivak class frigate and a landing vessel, joined an naval exercise with NATO vessels in Meditteranean. From NATO participated a British type 42 destroyer and a Spanish Perry class frigate. The forth of the Slava class desided to sold in India or China. Here is a french naval site that confirms my information. At the picture you will see that there are some diffrences from the first 3 units of the class.(Especially the funnel and the ESMs) http://forummarine.forumactif.com/Les-Marines-du-monde-c3/Europe-c6/Russie-Union-Sovietique-f4/Plan-de-la-Russie-Ukraine-pour-exporter-le-croiseur-inachev-t2251.htm

Brezhnev:

Excellent photographs of the Slava-class ships and a most interesting website for discussions. The forth ship to be sold to India or China, is that by Russia or is the ship still the property of Ukraine? I also noticed in a recent RIA Novosti article that Russia is commanding the current exercise for “Blackseafor 2007”. Formally established on Turkey's initiative in 2001, “Blackseafor” - which comprises Turkey, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, Georgia and Russia - conducts search and rescue operations, environmental monitoring and organizes goodwill visits among Black Sea countries. A large amphibious landing ship from Russia's Black Sea Fleet and several surface ships from Turkey, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Romania will participate in the exercise, which will last until April 29. Good opportunity for the Russian Navy to train with other local fleets.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler

Here is a statement of Sergei Ivanov (probably the next Russian prezident) in which he said that the major Russian fleet for the future will be the Pacific fleet.

I think that Ivanov is right because now the hole pacific fleet is consisted only by 5 major vessels. 1 Slava & 4 Udaloys. Actually real warship is the Slava cruiser. The other 4 Udaloys have no antiship missiles and no long range AAW missiles, so the 4 8000t Udaloys are like corvettes, I mean that these destroyers has the armament of a corvette. The short range SA-N-9 is fitted in smaller vessels. Actually Udaloys are so lightly armed like your Sptuance when appeared in 1974 but the they been enforced with tomahawk lauchers and the majority of Spruance with the MK-41 VLS. What is your opinion for Sergei Ivanov? (Personally I believe he is the best). Furthermore I guess that the most probale new US prezident will be John Endouards.

Brezhnev:

I think the six Oscar II submarines in the Pacific are the real “striking power” of the Russian Navy in that theater. I agree; the “Udaloys” are probably useful for the occasional anti-submarine sweep but little else. I also agree with Sergei Ivanov that the Pacific is very important to Russia in particular and the world in general. In the next thirty years, the all the world’s “super economics” will be Pacific based. A strong navy is essential in projecting influence in this region and China’s Navy is posed for incredible growth. It is China, and not the United States, that will be Russia’s peer rival for influence in this part of the world in the future.

Sergei Ivanov seems to be President Putin’s hand-picked successor and at this point another winner for the Russian Presidency would be a surprise here in America. John Edwards is a good man and would make an excellent president but is well behind in the polls to fellow Democrats’ Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. The Republican Party has many candidates without a clear favorite at this time and continues to be dogged by the politically unpopular Iraqi War. It will be an interesting American election in 2008.

Frank Shuler
USA

Hello there very nice website! Dude. Lovely. Excellent. I will take note of your site and also grab the rss feeds also? I am just pleased to come across a great number of beneficial facts in this article while in the submit, you want workout additional tactics about this regard, appreciate discussing.