"He knows if you've been bad or good, So be good for goodness' sake!"

Pathetic. Talk a about separation of church and the state.

Pavel, do you have any more information about the forth Project 955 submarine, the newly named “St. Nicholas”? I’m curious because the general thought was the forth submarine would be an improved class, the so-called, Project 955I that would incorporate “lessons-learned” from the Yuri Dolgorukiy class (the first three boats) It was even speculated the hull would be different; longer. Given this aggressive building schedule, that does not seem possible. Looks like the new “St. Nicholas” will just be the forth “Yuri Dolgorukiy” (Project 955) submarine.

The Kremlin sure seems determined to push this project along. This is surprising to me given the delays and present uncertainty of the Bulava system.

Frank Shuler
USA

My guess is that the project 955I only means that the submarine will be built completely from scrath with all the new designs ment for this project. Lack of money during construction start of the Borey led to use of sections from unfinished Akula hulls. There are several similarities between the Akula class and Yuri Dolgorukiy if you look into the photo's from her launch. Because the first hulls are using bow and stern sections from Akula hulls there is no way you can incorporate all the new designs ment to be fittet on the Borei class. For example the new Irtysh/Amfora bow sonar. The volume of space required for the new bow array has resulted in the need for the bow torpedo tubes to be moved further aft and to be inclined outwards as in American Seawolf class submarines. Pictures of Yuri show that she most likely has bow torpedotubes like all other russian submarines. The first two Borey is said to be built partly from sections from the unfinished Akula II hulls "Rys" and "Kougar". This means that the third boat actually can be a 955I.

There will of course be more design changes on the later boats as they learn and get exprience with the first of class. Just look at the Virgina and LA class.
The latest Akula II class also are different in design compared to the Akula I class. The boats are longer (equipment for noise reduction) and the Gepard also have a different pod for towed array. There is also difference between the Akula I class as you have the standard Akula I class and the improved Akula I. The Delta class of course is another example, Delta I/II/III/IV. The basic design of the hull is the same, but sensors, weapons etc are different resulting in new class names.

Bryan

Interesting post. As you well know, much is learned from the sea testing of any lead boat. You can run all the computer simulations and “pond testing” you want, but; whether the class will be successful or not will be determined in blue water. Only then can you test all the integrated systems and hull design to see if the design has merit. For a strategic missile submarine, only two things really mater. Is she silent; can she communicate under combat. Her defense is not torpedos but silence.

Is the Irtysh/Amfora bow sonar a targeting or navigation system? (curious)

As the 955-class lead boat, the “Yuri Dolgorukiy”, was laid in 1991, were the initial design decisions made to incorporate common components, such as the hull design, with the Project 971/971U boats or was this decision made much later in the “Yuri Dolgorukiy” building process?

If the decision was made later, and the rational was to save rubles by using surplus Akula hull components to finish the 955 submarines, much will be learned by the sea trials of the “Yuri Dolgorukiy”. Will she be capable of silent running? The cynic in me thinks not.

Frank Shuler
USA

Excuse me for writing out of topic: but I have a question concerning SSBN's in general? Are SLBM's capable of performing either a counterforce first strike OR counterforce second strike?? I refer to the difficulties with data transmission (ELF/VLF waves and their "peculiarities"). I know that one can only send a code to activate certain procedure of firing missiles?? But how flexible the system is?? I mean, IF Russia were to fire 60 missiles from silos (trandomly chosen), would it be able for US to order their submarines to destroy the rest of the silos (I mean all of them WITHOUT that 60, which were already emptied).
I am asking that question because I heard that some SLBM's (Trident II particularly) were designed as second strike counterforce i.e. were to destroy Russian silos (but not necessearily) cities should Russian used their SS-18 to eliminate Minuteman silo-based missiles (it was to be kind of "you stripped me from my first strike weapons so i'll do the same to you"). But were Trident's really expected to do that job??? Or were they only intended for first strike and second strike countervalue??? Or juist for countervalue??

m_16

My opinion has always been submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) were a counter-strike weapon all the way. Their true value is deterrence. To attack the United States with nuclear weapons in war, you must first destroy the silo based US Minuteman III ICBM fleet in an all-out first strike. However; the US would have its Trident submarine force able to respond with a devastating counter-strike that would leave any attacking nation in ruins. What would be the gain?

The talk of Trident having a first strike capability has grown recently because of the increased accuracy of its warheads. The 100-kiloton W76 warhead was initially designed as an airburst weapon designed to hold cities at risk. The newer W88 was far more deadly, 455 kiloton, and capable of hitting “hard targets”. Today, the W76 warheads are being updated to W76-1 standards and being equipped with a new fuze that would apparently allow them to strike ground targets. Accuracy is now approaching GPS quality. Given all that, Trident is still a counter-strike, deterrence weapon to the Pentagon. Launching some kind of first strike against Russian ICBM silos from the sea would certainly fail. Geography here works to Russia’s advantage; its huge land mass and the distance from the sea to its missile fields is vast. The Kremlin would simply have too much warning time from a Trident launch; enough time to easily launch its own strategic nuclear missiles.

Today, what the power and accuracy of the American Trident SLBM system has done is create policy questions in the Pentagon. Does the United States really need land-based ICBMs? Initial research & development dollars have been funded in the 2010 US Defense Budget for the new “Trident Replacement” to be introduced in the 2030 time frame. There is no money for a new ICBM.

Frank Shuler
USA

The Irysh/Amfora is an integrated sonar system comprising a large LF passive/active search and attack spherical bow array, VLF flank arrays and towed array.

Found on another forum:
"The Irtysh-Amfora bow sonar array is expected to resemble the array of the U.S. BQQ-2, in which a spherical active/passive array is flanked by passive receiving hydrophone arrays, but a drawing of the ship published in 1996 showed a standard Russian-style cylindrical bow array (the system dubbed Skat-3) with the torpedo tubes above it. Resource constraints may have forced Russia to abandon the more complex spherical array, which is installed in Yankee Big-Nose trials submarine Kazan (KS-403); see under [SSAN]. Locating a spherical sonar array at the bow requires the torpedo tubes to be relocated further aft, angled outboard, as in U.S. submarine designs since the late 1950s; if the design has been altered to employ a cylindrical array, however, then the tubes will likely have been relocated at the bow. "

The use of unfinished bow and stern/propulsion sections from uninished Akula hulls makes me believe the sub will not be as silent as intended. Using the stern sections means Yuri most likely uses the same shaft and gear configuration as the Akula class. She is most likely fitted with a propeller and not a pumpjet (we can argue about that as some pictures shows what can look like a pumpjet, but for me the design looks weird and to small, my guess is that she is fitted with some kind of shrouded propeller as on Typhoon sub) It is possible that Yuri is even using the same propulsion/reactor as Akula/Oscar/Sierra class. "Spare" reactors should at least be available with all the cancelled Akula/Oscar hulls. The original design whas to fit Borey with a new monoblock design with no need of refueling for the entire hulls life. We will know in 10-15 years when Yuri enters for mid-life overhaul, maybe information about core refueling will be published.

Mr. Schuler
Thank you for your reply to my question. BUt after reading it i have one other (question)? If SLBM's are basically just a deterrent why improvements in accuracy and in warhead's yield occurred??? If 100-kiloton and 200 meters of CEP is enough to destroy a city, then why spend additonal sum of money to get 475 kilotons and 90 meters respectively if it is unlikely that you get any gain from that. Why spend additional money if the improvements are unlikely to be helpful even in case of nuclear war??? Was not Trident I enough???

Bryan

Thanks for the interesting read. I agree with all your conclusions; thanks for the additional information on the Irysh/Amfora system. Other than the budget battles inside the Kremlin for navy funding, I still can’t quite understand why the rush to build this class. There will be so many lessons the “Yuri Dolgorukiy” will teach; from sea trials and Bulava testing, much will be learned. Applying those lessons to future Project 955 submarines will be expensive after the fact. Slow the program down and get it right; from building the submarine to perfecting the Bulava armament. Just my opinion.

Frank Shuler
USA

m_16

You raise an interesting question. Why does any nation improve its nuclear arsenal? For example, Russia is building new nuclear warheads to equip the Bulava missile system, the RS-24 road mobile system and the silo Topol-M (SS-27‘s). Why? Why not make use of existing nuclear warheads that are currently in inventory for the SS-19 and SS-18 fleet? Or the R-29R (SS-N-18) or R-29RM (SS-N-23)? In the United States, the W76 is the same warhead that went to sea with the Trident I (C4) missile systems in 1979 and is scheduled to be carried by Trident’s successor in the 2030 time frame. It’s the same weapon; same 100 kt yield but with far greater accuracy.

Many of these innovations are generated by the very Military Industrial Complex that builds these systems. When Lockheed said to the US Navy, would you like to have GPS accuracy with the Trident II (D5) missile? The Pentagon said, sure if it won’t cost more that the standard missile we’re buying from you now. Lockheed made the missile payload more accurate. My favorite example was when the US Navy told Electric Boat, the builder of the USS Los Angeles-class attack (fleet) submarines, that sea trials indicated more ballast was needed in the bow of the submarine, the engineers at EB worked out the numbers and presented the US Navy with a remarkable solution. Twelve launch compartments for Tomahawk cruise missiles could be installed in the bow of an USS Los Angeles boat and compensate exactly for the ballast weight needed to “right the boat”. The idea for installing vertical launch tubes on these submarines came not from the Pentagon but from the builder. Talk about taking a great submarine and making it even better!

Why does the United States need anything beyond the Trident I? Why does Russia need anything beyond the Delta III?

Both are good questions.

Frank Shuler
USA

Are there any more detailed news about the change in the factory for Bulawa production?

Chief of staff General Nikolai Makarov is cited that "the factory where the work will take place is being changed."

So where will Bulawa be produced in future if not Votkinsk?

m_16, many SLBMs are assigned to hardened targets, and not cities. Better accuracy means, among other things, less missiles required, and habce lower costs.

As far as I can tell, Makarov was talking about changing a subcontractor (presumably the one that manufactured the faulty component), not moving production of the missile from Votkinsk.

reko

But does that mean that attack on silos is an option?? either first strike or as a second strike counterforce??? But such an attack makes sense only when you can destroy at least land based Icbm's. Majority of them. But this would probably require nearly all avalaible SLBM warheads, leaving very little for possible countervalue (destroying cities)?? Or maybe these hard-target-assigned-missiles are targeted at command posts??? But, again does that mean that first strike is contemplated???

m_16,

what you're asking about is obviously highly classified information. What I do know from more or less reliable sources is that Soviet war plans called for land-based missiles only in the first phase of the war, be it a counter-strike or not.

But with the US it may well be the reverse. I heard that there was a plan of using a series of SLBM strikes on Soviet silos for the purpose of delaying the launches - until more high-yield and precise land-launched ICBMs arrive.

First strike has to be contemplated by US, I believe, for a variety of reasons.

reko
m_16

...“First strike has to be contemplated by US, I believe, for a variety of reasons.”...

I would be curious what those “variety of reasons” are.

I’m sure the Pentagon and the Kremlin have “nuclear war plans” to fit any conceivable world situation. Both countries have had over fifty years to create such plans and, after all, that is their job; planning wars that never happen. But, are you insinuating either side has an active “first-strike” policy today?

Frank Shuler
USA

reko
thank you for your reply. I hve only one question then: why Trident II is so precie if it is unsure whether it can be effectively used against hard targets???