Im interested has anyone got some drawings or sketches at least as how should 6/10 hypersonic manurable look like on Bulava bus .. and Im not sure are all warheads carried on one maneuverable bus or is it one bus one warhead ... tnx

I’m afraid some people that expected to see the failure of the Bulava program will be strongly disappointed.

Kolokol

I suspect the greatest skeptic of the Bulava program was/is another “design bureau” in Russia. (smile)

Frank Shuler
USA

Yeap Frank, you are rigth. Take a look of RIAN and you will see interesting lobying articles.

Gentlemen,

I do not understand this deafening silence after this test? All previous tests and associated failures would get reported by all (well, almost all) major news outlets. It was all the same story but it was re-printed a number of times. This time it is almost anticlimactic.

Okay, things have changed a bit in the world and it could be simply that people (and editors) do not care. Could I be missing anything else?

Sergey

Kolokol

There was a small article carried by Reuters last week where a senior general of the 27th Guards Missile Army stated a “new more powerful” nuclear ICBM was in design to be introduced in the 2020 timeframe that would be replacing these existing systems. (I inferred he was talking about the current mix of SS-27 and the new, not yet operational RS-24s) I wonder if this is the “heavy SS-19-class” liquid fueled missile system we have heard so much of in speculation?

Frank Shuler
USA

Quote: "All previous tests and associated failures would get reported by all (well, almost all) major news outlets"

Because it was a succeful test. If a failures had happened, be sure to hear lot of noise. Take a positive look: the silence is a further confirmation of succes.

To Frank: The answer is "yes". The idea of a liquid fueled 100 tn ICBM is still alive, but no final desicion have been taken so far.

The 'Bulava' test appears to be of a single warhead only. Even the official version only mentions the warhead having hit the target in kamchatka. There is no mention of 'warheads' having hit their separate targets. May be the officials decided to confirm the performance of a single target before embarking on multiple targets. This may also be the reason for the 'deafening silence' after the test.

K.A.Sharma: A few reports quoted official representatives mentioning several warheads. I'm not sure, though, what kind of reaction was expected - after all it was just a test of a missile.

UPDATE 12/01/08: A source in the Navy was quoted as saying that one more Bulava test is scheduled this year.
Old Link.
That is correct:
http://www.rian.ru/defense_safety/20081201/156222848.html

Pavel,

Thanks for the information. However, I wonder why then the official news does not even clearly state that all targets reached their destinations. Is it that the govt. does not want to celebrate this defense achievement especially at a time when the world is going through economic turmoil and there is a sullen mood everywhere?

Thank you. I corrected the link.

K.A.Sharma

Why are you so persistent with your unfounded speculations? Do you even have any evidence to back them up? Whether you like it or not the Test was a success and theres little thing you can do about that now. You’re just probably raising these empty questions to make people think that the Bulava still has problems.

Anonymous

While K.A. Sharma can certainly defend himself, his prior history on Russianforces.org clearly qualifies himself as a Russian patriot. In fact, we have had some pointed exchanges through the years; agree some, disagree more but always with respect. I think he has only raised natural questions on the recent Bulava test based on previous Russian media disclosures. A test is a 100% success one day and then revised to be a failure or only a partial success the next. A certain amount of suspicion is naturally called for. That being said, the Kremlin will get this right over time but a sea-based ballistic missile system is a difficult technical achievement; far outweighing any ICBM development. Patience is always called for.

Frank Shuler
USA

Anonymous,

I most certainly do not have any intentions to create doubts in anyone's mind about Bulava. I only wondered what could've been the reason for lack of enthusiasm for this remarkable success!

If and when Bulava is succesfull and is adopted, what will this missile mean for the Russian Navy? What will be the impact on the quality of the sea-based nuclear detterrent? What about sub patrol frequency? Will it go up? Does it matter (if patrol frequency is low, as was reported for 2007)?
I would like to hear your opinions.

So this immediate lunch in December if sucessful like the one in late November , will give RuN ,designer and manufacturer of Bulava the confidence that they can launch full scale production.

Two back to back sucess will be good news for every one.

The problem with Bulava lately was always with its active MIRV not working 100 % , so with this launch they seem to have perfected it.

Sergey sucessfull bulava launch will mean they can go ahead with the new gen SSBN program in full swing , Bulava was always a sticking point.

Quality wise it will be a jump to new generation system , both as a sub platform and the new SLBM system , certainly a quality leap.

Patrol frequency has nothing to do with it , but I think 6 new submarine by 2015 will help them keep the patrol tempo high with quick turnaround times

Sergey
Austin Joseph

The limitation on the Russian Navy today to provide at-sea deterrence patrols has little to do with hardware. On paper today, the Kremlin has a total of ten ballistic missile submarines and yet struggles (fails) to keep a single submarine on constant patrol. Using the operational tempo of the US Navy or, even the French as a guide, the Russian Navy with only five Delta IVs in inventory should be able to keep a single boat at sea at all times. Moscow has found this impossible to do. The issue is crews. There just aren’t enough trained submariners to support the fleet. Working under the assumption the Borey’s are to replace the Delta III boats in inventory and the five Delta IVs will continue in service, the Russia Navy will still be in the same place unless greater effort is made to train crews. The 12 operational American Trident submarines are at sea 66% of the time; achieved with a massive investment in dockyard support and crew training; each boat has two complete crews. Russian submarines have shortages in ratings and officers to support their boats. In fact, Russian nuclear officers are often shifted from deploying boat-to-boat because of such shortages resulting in crews going to sea with officers they have never trained with. The patrol itself becomes a big training mission. To get more boats to sea this has to change.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank,

You got the point. But nevertheless, this all can change in just a few years to come, just as it has decayed some years ago. If you remember various comments, why do Russian deterrent patrols don't last longer, or can they even be called that name, the point of them at this moment might not be deterrent at all but training crews. I agree though that the mere number of boats doesn't mean effective deterrent without the ability to take most of them at sea at once if needed.

Ivan

Frank, Ivan, Austin Joseph,

Thank you - I think the picture is fairly clear and I appreciate education.
Personally, I have been wondering why the Russian defence ministry chose to allocate so much of precios funding over the past 10 years to Borei/Bulava project. If indeed the effectiveness of Russian sea based nuclear deterrent is is limited by deployment capability of the (submarine) fleet than would it not be more effective to use this funding towards building better basing and docking facilities, crew recruitment and training, etc.
But again, maybe I am missing something. How much more difficult would it be for US Navy to keep tabs on Borei on patrol vs Delta III/IV or Project 941?
Of course, there could be a very simple expanation in that the decision was bad but having committed themselves publicaly, the government (read Putin) could not back down.

Sergey
Ivan

The military-industrial-complex is alive and well today in Russia just like here in the United States. Often governmental military policy is so tainted with such politics that decisions deify all logical understanding. In these discussions, I have often speculated what I would do if I was in the Kremlin and had total control over the Russian submarine force. First, I would get the five surviving Delta IV boats refurbished and updated with the new Sineva missile project. Second, I would assign two crews to each boat even if it meant cannibalizing the existing Delta III submarines and make the massive investments needed to provide two support bases in the North Fleet and the Pacific that the Delta IVs could use interchangeably. I can’t emphasize how important the support structure is to a modern ballistic missile submarine fleet. Third, I would build a new class of small, fast fleet nuclear submarines to escort the Delta IVs. Building nuclear submarines is a complicated manufacturing process requiring well educated, trained, and motivated workers. You can’t just take ten years off from building such boats as Russia was forced to do with the end of the Soviet Union without suffering serious industrial consequences. Build first the less complicated nuclear fleet boats that are still urgently needed and in the process reacquire the industrial skills needed to build the more complicated ballistic missile submarines of the future. After all that, and only after all that, would I look to build a replacement for the Delta IVs with new designs and new missile systems. (Bulava-type system)

Sergey, I think the Borey-class will present the US Navy with a worthy opponent. I think it will be a difficult boat to track.

Frank Shuler
USA

How many bulava missiles will the succeeding Borei class submarines have? There were some articles that suggests that the newly built submarines (Project 935"A") will accommodate 20 missiles instead of 16. If this was the case, then i guess its a good decision. after all, these subs were originally designed to carry 20 missiles. (SS-N-28 Bark)

Nakajima

Pavel can correct me if I’m wrong but the lead boat of the Borey Class, the “Yuri Dolgorukiy” (Project 955) was START declared with 16 missiles. The “Alexander Nevsky” and the “Vladimir Monomakh” are under construction and the forth Borey-class submarine will be an updated design; perhaps a new class. (Project 935A?) Today, again according to START declarations, each Bulava missile will carry 6 MIRV warheads.

Just to speculate on the forth Borey submarine, an increase in missile capacity will require a lengthen hull design over the “Yuri Dolgorukiy”. That will be the key to watch for as information on this forth submarine begins to be slowly published.

Frank Shuler
USA

Still it looks to me that Russians would be much better off if instead of pursuing creation of over the size Borei class submarines they would build more Delta IV class subs, actively working on decreasing their noise level. It was never a good idea to put all the eggs in to one basket and 16 (or now even 20 nuclear missiles on board of one sub doesn’t look like a smart idea at all). In a real combat situation most probably none of this ships would have even a chance to launch it missiles before being neutralized by attack submarines. Smaller but much less traceable subs, capable of caring the same size SLBM, spread all over the oceans seams to be much more formidable weapon then few oversized Borei class submarines.
The same is most probably true for land based ICBMs where constantly changing positions mobile lunching platforms (such as SS-27 Topol M)could prove to be much more difficult to trace and neutralize then any underground lunch site of SS-18 Satan silo based missile.

Observer

since the Borei class submarine is very close to the Ohio class in size, are you also suggesting that the latter (due to its size) is also vulnerable to Russian attack submarines?

Frank,

You say that you would build a new class of "small attack subs". Why in your opinion Akula II (Project 971) does not fit the bill? In other words, why does it make sense to modernize boomers and not attack subs? And second question, does project 885 fit the bill (if project 971 does not).

Nakajima

To some degree, yes. But there are 18 of them, so the principle of the all eggs in one basket is not exactly applicable here…Yuri Dolgorukiy on another hand is the only sub of Borei class in the Russian fleet, still awaiting new missiles, under construction since 1996 and without any doubts going to be the first target (in case of any nuclear conflict) just because of its size and number of missiles on board.
I would also notice that although submarines of such a type were built under assumption that they can operate with relative safety in their own waters, based on the range of the missiles they carry on board, I think that it isn’t necessary so. If the approximate position of such a ballistic missile submarine could be determined during the time of the conflict then underwater explosion of nuclear (land based) ICBM in the vicinity of the suspected position of such a sub would lead to the same lethal damage as it could be inflicted by the direct attack from the attack submarine. Indeed 15-20 megatons nuclear underwater explosion would not leave any chances to any vessel around. Reducing noise level therefore appears to be more crucial then even a number of missiles on board and Ohio class subs are currently doing much better to this respect. On the other hand it is just hard to imagine that the only Borei class submarine in Russian fleet didn’t receive that level of attention that would made it impossible for it to just “disappear” on the ocean floor.

Observer

Remember there are only 14 Trident submarines in the American arsenal of which only 12 are operationally deployable. There are 2 boats undergoing nuclear refueling or long-term maintenance at any given time. Four of the early Ohio-class submarines have been converted to carry only conventional Tomahawk cruise missiles.

A Trident submarine displaces somewhere around 18,750 tons submerged. I’ve never seen the quoted displacement of the Borey-class. Do we think the “Yuri Dolgorukiy” is that large?

Frank Shuler
USA

Sergey

Russian ballistic missile submarines are generally thought to deploy with two escorting nuclear fleet boats. With a deployment rate of 25% for the fleet submarines, it would take the entire compliment of Akula’s to protect the “boomers”. Russia needs more submarines period. My strategy was to reconstitute the fleet boats while at the same time standardizing on the Delta IV with the goal of keeping one submarine on deterrence patrol at all time.

My opinion is that the Project 885 submarine is designed for a different navy than Russia needs today. Perhaps like the Seawolf-class in the US that was considered too “Cold War” orientated. The class ended with only two fleet submarines constructed, the third was converted into a “special missions platform” before construction was even completed. To this day, these submarines have never fulfilled their expectations and cost a fortune.

Just my opinion.

Frank Shuler
USA

Observer

But the Yuri Dolgorukiy is not the only ballistic missile submarine in service in the Russian navy. Presently there are around 14 active SSBNs in the Russian fleet, and it is not forever that they will have a single Borei class. Do you still think that they fall under the principle of all eggs in one basket?
Ballistic missiles submarines are very difficult to track or if they were, it would already be too late.

Frank Shuler

Thank you very much for clearing it out for me. I truly appreciate your help.

I am sorry, unfortunately I didn’t see the direct quote on displacement for Borei class submarine either but the data I saw makes me to believe that the size of Ohio class submarines and Yuri Dolgorukiy are about the same. This conclusion is based on the following:

I know that Trident submarines are 560 feet long, with a beam of 42 feet and displacement of more then 18,000 tons when submerged. (You are showing displacement more precisely although as of 18,750 tons). I also know that Ohio class submarines have a top speed of more then 20 knots and a crew of 155.

I checked an official Russian NAVY web site (www.navy.ru) and according to it Yuri Dolgorukiy is 170 miters (557.6 feet) long, with a beam of 13.5 miters (44.28 feet). Projected top speed of this submarine is shown as 29 knots and although a size of the crew is not shown there but according to data that appeared in Russian press it was projected to equip submarines of this type (project 955) with emergency rescuing chamber, capable to deliver from submerged position to the ocean surface the entire crew “of more then a hundred”. (Approximation again! But I think that this number is rather closer to 155 like the size of the crew on Trident then to a 100).

So if anyone would compare Ohio class submarine that is 560 feet long with a beam of 42 feet and a crew of 155 with Borei class sub that is 557 feet long with beam of 44 feet and a crew of “more then a hundred” the logical conclusion should probably be that their displacement should be about the same.

Frank,

Thank you, I appreciate your patience very much. I did not realize there were two attack subs deployed for each boomer. This is quite amazing.

Best regards,

Borei displaces 24,500 submerged , the larger displacement is due to its double hull, certainly she displaces more than Ohio , larger than Delta 4 but smaller than Typhoon.

Nakajima

In regards to its ballistic missile submarine fleet, one could argue that Russia today has all its “eggs in few baskets”. Only a handful of strategic submarines actively patrol and over the last few years, Russia has not been able to maintain a single constant “submarine at sea on deterrence patrol”. Numbers of submarines on paper do not a fleet make. This will begin to change as the Delta IVs are modernized and returned to active service and the Borey’s enter the fleet. How many strategic boats does Russia need to maintain at sea at any given time? Looks like the force is building to always keep one submarine each on patrol in the Northern and Pacific Fleets. Remember, this does not preclude the ability to sortie “boomers” in a national emergency. Just my guess.

Frank Shuler
USA

Observer

The “Yuri Dolgorukiy” at approximately 18,000t is a huge submarine to carry only 16 missiles, would you not agree? Any thoughts why?

Good exchange of views.

Frank Shuler
USA

Austin Joseph

The best explanations are usually the simplest. Of course the double hull construction of the Borey’s would account for the tonnage differential. Thanks for the information.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank, the double hull makes the difference. It can be seen as a "Delta-V". 16 SLBM is fine.

Also I agree with your above "plan" for the RuNavy, but priorities were given to SSBN rather than SSN. This is because Kalmar aka. "Delta-III" will not last very long.

Nakajima

May be not in a single one. There are currently under construction two more submarines of the same class Aleksandr Nevskiy and Vladimir Monomah. Hopefully they aren’t going to be in this stage for the next 12 years.

I agree it is indeed very hard to truck Russian submarines but only in respect that it is very complicated endeavor. The whole submarine tracking system is technically very sophisticated but it is also extremely reliable. Submarines are constantly tracked during the entire length of their patrol and those occasions when their track could be temporarily lost are very rare and are rather exceptions. There are actually layers and layers of different means to track such submarines and all of these means are constantly supplementing each other. Obtained with their help information is constantly, in real time consolidated on the monitors of Naval Ocean Surveillance System (NOSS) and trucking the sub there is as easy as watching a monitor. The whole extent of such surveillance, without any doubts, is a government secret but general picture that can be learned from open sources nevertheless looks extremely impressive.

1. At the very moment of entering on to patrol Russian subs are already closely monitored by sensitive sonars aboard American attack submarines, stationed off the exit channels from Russian submarine bases. Among other things such a monitoring insure detection when Russian sub is trying to exit the base during time slots when there are no spy satellites on the orbit.

2. When the sub is out of its base the surveillance is also conducted by Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) with its vast array of passive hydroacoustical devices, placed around both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Each submarine has its own “sound footprint” by which it can be easily identified by computers of antisubmarine warfare system (ASW).

3. When a submarine sends microburst message to its headquarters that by itself lasts millisecond such a transmission is picked up by a radio-monitored network, code-named Boresight with its listening stations “elephant cages” located in different locations on the rim of the oceans and the bearings triangulated. The intersection of three bearing lines giving the exact location of the transmission.

4. Radar transmissions are monitored the same way as above by Naval Ocean Surveillance System (NOSS) and location of the source is also instantly determined by triangulation.

5. An attack submarine could often physically shadow the ballistic missile submarine on patrol.

6. A network of supersecret ocean-surveillance satellites is constantly monitoring the movement of Russian ships and submarines. Their features include such capabilities as signal intelligence gathering and monitoring radio traffic or radar transmission by using triangulation. These satellites not only look, they also listen. Some of them operate on the orbit as high as 700 miles above the Earth and providng high-resolution electro-optical digital imaging in real time. In addition to their digital optical systems such satellites also have infrared imaging capability that permits them to gather image at night, to locate and “photograph” submarines deep inside ocean waters by using their “hit signature” or even “photograph” events that have taken place in the recent past through the extremely sensitive sensors that can detect tiny amount of residual hit.

Given that these layers of surveillance are always interlacing each other it is very hard to imagine that all of them would suddenly loose submarine truck and in addition to that do it all at the same time. That is why I think that it probably makes for Russian some sense to move away from trying to put all their eggs in to the same basket.

There is no 100 % full proof way to track a submarine ( least of all constantly ) , much like there is no 100 % full proof way to hide a submarine on patrol.

All the super secret satellites ,SSN on patrol,listening and tracking like SOSUS , always existed and still the SSBN managed to give a slip to these multi layered tracking and detection system.

Both the sides managed to track their opponent SSBN on patrol and both managed to give a slip as well.

Its a cat and mouse game , submarine are the best stealth platform which can evade the most sophisticated surveillance system , hence most countries rely on SSBN as their fullproof 2nd strike capability.

The Laws of Physics also prevents much progress to be made in field of detection for submarines

Frank Shuler

I agree with you, if you look on it through American eyes. If you look on it through the eyes of the Russians, then you would see absolutely different picture although. "Yuri Dolgoruki" was laid down in 1996 when Russians didn’t have so compact Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles as their American counterparts and originally planed to use on Yuri Dolgoruki an improved version of R-39 (SS-N-20) Sturgeon SLBM. For comparison submarines of the 941 Acula (Typhoon) Class were equipped with 20 launch tubes for R-39s missiles and were the largest submarines of the Cold War. They were 565 feet long with a beam of 76 feet and displacement of 48,000 tons, more than double that of the Ohio Class. They also were double hulled and powered by two reactors. When work began in 1996 on construction of "Yuri Dolgoruki" the decision was made to reject double hulling for this sub and to build it instead over “classical” design with one strong hull instead. The upgraded missile R-39M Grom for its 16 lunch tubes was tested in November 1998 but disastrous explosions at launch during a test program forced to make changes to the intended weapons (By some accounts it happened after failed launches of upgraded missile R-39 UTX “Bark”). After decision was made that instead of it "Yuri Dolgoruki" is going to be equipped with SLBM R-30 “Bulava” it appeared that farther modernization in the project became possible. It was relayed to the public that starting with the third submarine of the project "Vladimir Monomah" all following Borei Class submarines are going to be built over the project 995A with redesigned shape of the hull and increased number of launch tubes to 20.
Still it is coming short of 24 launch tubes on Ohio Class submarines… But may be next, even more compact design of the missiles system was already put on to drawing boards.

I doubt any Russian submarine specially SSBN will be single Hull design , that is simply because of the extreme harsh climate that these subs operate which is long duration snow covered ports , double hull also reduces maintenance needed and is useful during submerged under ice operation ,not to mention the safety margin is higher compared to single hull design ..JMT

Observer, do you have a link an the info about 20 tubes? I doubt 995A will have 20 tubes. The double hull is a serious constraint that may prevent it .Ohio, although have roughly the same size have 24 tubes just because they are single hull. And I agree with Austin: the harsh climate and weak infrastructure of SSBN harbours forces to use double-hull designs.

Observer
Austin Joseph
Kolokol

I have always taken a different view of Soviet, now Russian, double-hulled submarines. I believe when information from the 1980’s Walker Spy Network reached Moscow, the Kremlin learned just how effective the American surveillance systems were in tracking strategic submarines on patrol. That knowledge forced the Russian Navy to pull their missile boats to more home waters so the submarines could be better protected by nuclear fleet boats and surface ASW ships. The construction decision to double-hull submarines came from the realization that such submarines still could be tracked and attacked, even under Arctic ice conditions. The double-hull design was built to provide the Soviet (Russian) submarine the best chance of surviving multiple torpedo hits and still being able to accomplish its mission. In most of the US Navy gaming scenarios, it indeed took multiple Mk-48 torpedoes to sink or severely damage a Typhoon-class submarine after such a submarine was operationally identified and attacked.

I have another theory on the double-hulled Soviet (Russian) submarine. I suspect the design is a maintenance nightmare. My conjecture is that as moisture condensates on the outer-inner pressure hull from the generated warmth of the submarine in relation with the sea, with no place to evaporate or dissipate, corrosion (rust) is a natural result. You will always have to cut two hulls to replace rust plates. Just my hunch.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank

if what you said about the walker spy network is true, what similar systems does Russia operate to track American SSBN movements? If in case they still dont have any, then I believe introducing a similar component in their surveillance network will greatly improve their deterrent capabilities since a large portion of America's nuclear weapons are submarine based, and having the capability to track and destroy them is a great deal. Its impossible to say that they haven't considered such an option

Nakajima

Certainly in the past Soviet, and we would assume Russian now, naval intelligence has attempted to provide such technology. I remember a case where a Soviet “sonar-type device” washed up on the shore of Vancouver, Canada that obviously was intended to track Trident submarines in transit from the US Naval base at Bangor, Washington (US State). One thing just can’t be changed, geography. The United States has the natural advantage of being a maritime power in the same was as Russia does with being a land power. Perhaps the historical analogy would be Athens and Sparta.

I suspect after the Trident boats sortie from Bangor and Kings Bay, Georgia (US State) they simply disappear from detection. The best and only way, to attack a Trident submarine on patrol is with yet another nuclear submarine. Until Russia, China, or whoever has such a global naval capacity, I suspect the Trident deterrent is absolute.

Frank Shuler
USA

To all,

In trying to get some basic education from available open sources on submarine tracking, I came up on these two documents (see attached links at the bottom of this comment).

My impresion has been that USN relies primarily (not solely but primarily) on nuclear submarine fource for ASW. While SOSUS had been very effective back in 70s, it is much less effective nowdays with quieter Russian subs (hence all the haste in USN to migrate to active sonars). Airborne ASW is also quite effective but US has been loosing quite a bit of its P3 fleet. Although NATO allies are quite effective with airborne ASW in the North and Bering See, their reach does not extend to Arctic or to the Northern Pacific. Satellites are effective only when Russian subs are communicating but there is a way to get around that as well (I could think of at least one engineering solution to that problem). There is of course magnetic anomaly phenomenon and some of the satellites have that capability. I do not know how effective it is - maybe someone can comment.

The net of it is that I do not believe that USN can reliably track every Russian boomer now and more so when Russian subs resume steady patrol rate. The level of activity bu USN in Barents and of of Kamchatka are an indirect confirmation of that: unless USN can get on the tail of one right when it exits the base, tracking Russian subs becomes much, much less reliable as they leave the port.

On a somewhat of a side note, I read somewhere that Borey has a "sonar belt" as opposed to a bow and towed array sonar only. Could be a hoax, for sure. However, if you were to assume that it was true, Borey may not require 2 attack subs for an escort. One may still utilize 2 subs to run interference for the boomer getting out of base but you may not need three subs running patrol together. That's purely speculation on may part, interested in your comments.

http://www.armscontrol.ru/subs/snf/snf0322.htm#Toc05
http://www.armscontrol.ru/subs/collisions/debates.htm

I am quite skeptical when ONI says Russia submarine (SSBN) has done x number of patrol in so and so year.

These are just intel and like any intel in the world from any agency ,this can be wrong.

We should take this with pinch of salt.