The K-117 Bryansk submarine of the Project 667BDRM class has left Severodvinsk to join the Northern Fleet, according to an ARMS-TASS report. The overhaul of the submarine, which began in July 2002, was completed in November 2007. It is expected that the submarine will enter active service in February 2008.
This is the fourth Project 667BDRM submarine that has underwent overhaul in recent years - K-51 Verkhoturie, K-84 Ekaterinburg, and K-114 Tula were the first three. K-18 Karelia is still at the Zvezdochka plant and K-407 Novomoskovsk will probably join it there soon.
It appears that during the overhaul submarines are equipped with new R-29RM Sineva missiles. They are expected to remain in active service for at least ten years.
The book
Comments
[They are expected to remain in active service for at least ten years.]
Surprised at the Project 667BDRM overhaul adding only 10 years to this class. Was nuclear refueling part of this work?
Frank Shuler
USA
Perhaps there is no need for more than 10 years of operational service since by that time Borei will come in service in numbers.
10 more years gives it a total life of about 30 years since commissioning. That is the average life that they keep them around. Maybe they are hoping to increase production of Borey and they can phase these out in 10 years time.
Ten years is also a normal initial lifetime of missiles. That can be extended, though.
Viktor:
Rich:
Pavel:
I agree it looks like the Borei-class is destined to replace the Delta IVs in operational service and I expect the Project 667BDRM boats to supply the crews for the Project 955 submarines. Just make sense.
Historically, the time of service for nuclear submarines is dependent on its fuel. To refuel a nuclear boat is both time intensive and very expensive. Many times it just makes sense to build a new submarine in place of refurbishing an older model. The US Navy has decommissioned Los Angeles (688-class) submarines will less than twenty years service because the overhaul would cost more than the submarine had value in a fleet reducing in size. The money could better be invested in the follow-up class, the Virginia’s.
Of course, inventing in new combat information systems, sonar arrays, and weapon systems make updating any 20-year old submarine an expensive proposition.
I would be interested to learn if these refits for the Delta IVs include nuclear refueling.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank: I'm not sure Russian submarines have lifetime cores. I'll have to look. Anyway, there is no law that says that you have to have a lifetime core.
Frank:
As a US Submarine officer I have pretty intimate knowledge of submarine lifetimes (at least US models) and you are correct and lifetime is based on fuel but also hull life and interior maintenance. For the US, we average it out that the core lasts about 20-25 years and the hull is rated for 50. Now..the fuel then is based on OPTEMPO and we know that Russia does not have as intense of an OPTEMPO as the US so theoretically the core could last longer.
As for US NAVY decomming boats less than 20, that is also dependent on many things. My last command is undergoing decommission this year. She has never been refuelled and never undergone a major refit/overhaul. She has been commissioned for 20 years. Her problem was her usefulness, she was too busy to take into the yards for 1.5 years and her core was fine...she is being decommissioned because her internals need so many repairs, it isn't worth it.
But for a 20 year old submarine, she was one of the best and had much of the newest equipment, over in the US, age doesn't always matter.
In short: Based on the 10 year life lengthening and the cost of a refueling and their previous OPTEMPO, I doubt it was refuelled.
Rich
Rich:
I really appreciate your comments and your addition to this discussion. To have access to your experiences and insights is really quite a treat. My assumption on the nuclear refueling of the Delta IVs is the same. The updated Project 667BDRMR boats with the “new” 29RM Sineva missile will provide the Russian Navy a good transition point to the new 955 class the and Bulava system.
By the way, slightly off topic, how do you think the new Ohio-Class conversions to Cruise Missile Submarines will go? Operationally (tactically) the change from a deep water, “silent hole in the ocean” platform, to a littoral combat vessel is quite a jump. Curious to your thoughts.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank:
I have not had the experience yet of serving on those boats, but from what I know they should be a great platform. The range of a tomahawk is about 750 miles and that distance will provide enough room for the SSGN to be able to fulfill their role.
Since there will be new crews on the boat, they will have the SSN mentality vice the SSBN mentality which will allow them to operate the boat more effectively. Granted these boats will not be able to enter the littoral as gracefully as the SSN, but as a mobile missile platform it will be an excellent addition. I would never refer to the SSGN as a "littoral combat platform" and any report that does is way off base. Due to their size they will not be able to fulfill the ISR role of the SSN in a high contact environment. While I haven't seen any of their deployment reports as of yet, but I suspect they stay out in the deeper waters doing other, more suitable, missions.
Rich:
Interesting observation on crewing the SSGN fleet. My understanding is these four boats will be home-ported in Washington and Georgia like the “boomer” fleet but with enhanced forward bases, such as Diego Garcia. Do we think the SSGNs will have dual crews like the Blue & Gold of the Trident fleet?
In the 1980’s the Pentagon did a study on building a simple, commercial designed, ship that would be armed with the Tomahawk cruise missile and server as a “arsenal ship”. The ship would have a small crew and little amenities. It could be deployed off the coast of potential enemies to provide a visible presence of American sea power and replace the need to have a carrier on station. In combat, it would pack quite a punch. Of course, the Navy took the suggestion and created the Strike Cruiser design. Now it was an AEGIS equipped, 10,000 ton warship with a crew of 300. Later designs by PEO&Ships added nuclear propulsion to the Strike Cruiser and it faced a slow death in Congress, never to be built. Seems like the “arsenal ship” has been reborn in the Ohio SSGN boats.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank:
In fact, the SSGNs do have two crews. In fact the first SSGN conversion (USS Ohio) just completed a crew changeover in Guam. Reports are that in fall 2008 she will commence the first 1 year deployment with crew changeovers every three months.
The SSGN can be considered the new "arsenal ship" but also has other functions such as a DDS for SEAL deployments...how effective it is has yet to be tested operationally.
Well, I guess luckily for us START II is gone otherwise these great platforms would have been scrapped!
On another note, the US Navy is seriously considering recreating a surface nuclear fleet (cruisers and DDGs) so maybe the original "arsenal ship" will be created also.
Rich
Rich:
If the cost of shipbuilding isn’t somehow brought to reason, the US Navy will be lucky to build even a few LCSs.
Frank Shuler
USA
Ahhh...you would be amazed how the US Navy finds money. There was talks about being able to fund the Virginia class and now the production rate has picked up. We do things like using money from this year and holding it for future years. In reality, the nuclear navy typically gets what it wants, it is the conventional guys that suffer!
And the LCS is a great idea in theory, but way to expensive for the purpose.
Rich:
It is Congress that’s taking the lead on expanding the Virginia-class submarines in production. Congress is lead-funding the class with an additional submarine, for a total of two per year, to be built starting in 2009 up from the single boat-per-year authorizations of the recent years. The US Navy wants that procurement year pushed back to 2012.
This year’s budget debate in Congress was about increasing the number of ships in the fleet. The CNO was asked in Congressional testimony, if shipbuilding funds were doubled this year, what would he spend the money on? He answered, until the debacle in the shipyards is corrected, increased monies would not translate to more ships. [paraphrased]
Newport News employs 21,000 skilled workers that demand a payroll of over $1 billion per year if a ship is built or not. Northrop-Grumman has stated the shipyard there has a $3 billion dollar annual expense in total. No wonder the budget to get the USS G.R. Ford to blue water is estimated at $15 billion.
Agreed on the LCS. I don’t think it’ll survive the budget wars next year.
One thing is clear to me, the US Navy is going to be much smaller in the future.
Frank Shuler
USA
What was the last plan...330 ship Navy by 2010?
Either way, we are still better off that our Russian counterparts....
Rich:
Today’s Navy (January 24, 2008) has 333,552 active duty personnel and 280 deployable battle force ships. Both numbers are decreasing. Without the LCS build in numbers, the overall size of the fleet will fall to the 250-ship range in the intermediate future. Give that, the US Navy will be the envy of the world; in power and scope.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank:
You continue to amaze me with your wealth of knowledge. You would be a formidable opponent in any debate! What is your background anyway?
Rich
Rich:
My friends refer to me as an amateur naval historian. However; I prefer to think of myself as a professional naval historian, unpublished. (grin) At the end of the day, I’m just a guy that reads a lot.
I do find it interesting to research historical precedents and attempt to apply their lessons to present day situations. I enjoy the challenge of interpreting some fact or event and trying to determine its impact on future naval procurement, strategy, or tactics. For example, the surface warfare community is very quiet about the future of the before mentioned LCS project. Both Lockheed and General Dynamics have lead ships under construction and scheduled for trials in 2008-9 with a Congressionally mandated down-solution to a single hull design by 2009 before any additional ships can be ordered. Both contractors are quiet and there doesn’t seem to be any posturing for political position. However, the naval UAV community is abuzz. The Northrop Grumman MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned helicopter is being developed specifically for the LCS and the realization is that this ship project may not continue. Therefore they are scrambling to acquire test & development funds to platform this UAV from a DDG-51 Burke-class destroyer. Also, the mine hunting system, using an UUMV (unmanned underwater marine vehicle) also designed for the LCS already has been tested and approved for fleet deployment in seven Burke destroyers. I can’t think of a poorer ship platform for these systems than a Burke. My conclusion is that the LCS is in deep trouble.
I look at the rebuilding of the “modern” post-1991 Russian Navy with equal interest. Many things to ponder.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank:
Obviously we have gone way off topic for this post, but I don't know if you have access to the Congressional Reports through the CRS, but here is a report from August on the LCS. It seems that you know most of this already, but may give you some more info. If you have trouble accessing it, let me know.
http://bosun.nps.edu/uhtbin/cgisirsi.exe/Sun+Jan+27+13:36:35+2008+/SIRSI/0/520/CRS-RL33741.pdf
Rich
Rich:
Indeed, I follow Ronald O’Rourke’s work closely. I enjoy the Congressional Research Service Reports and insights into policy these works present. I think I always come away with a greater appreciation of these defense issues; a respect for the process.
Frank Shuler
USA
Pavel:
Do we know if one of these Delta IVs armed with the R-29RM Sineva missile has undertaken a deterrent patrol since their return to the fleet? I don't remember this ever being reported and I was just curious.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank: I guess Delta IVs do one or two patrols a year, but these are never reported.
Pavel:
I just had the remembrance of the Rs. Tula released back to the fleet after her overhaul only to learn, nearly a year later, her R-29RM Sineva missiles were still on order for delivery. I remember how surprised we all were when the Kremlin announced 24 new ICBMs were to be procured in the 2007-year only to learn that 16 of those were Sineva’s for the Tula. Usually SLBMs were never announced. I was just curious if any Delta IV, the K-51 Verkhoturie, K-84 Ekaterinburg, or K-114 Tula had actually gone to sea on patrol. Thanks for the follow-up.
Frank Shuler
USA
On February 11th, 2008, SSBN K-117 'Bryansk' were officially transferred to the Russian Navy after repair and modernization on a 'Zvezdochka' shipyard at Severodvinsk. On February 9th, the representatives of a shipyard signed the official 'Certificate of Transfer' of K-117 to the Northern Fleet.
It was also reported, that K-117 'Bryansk' was at repair and overhaul since 2002 to the end of 2007.