During the flag raising ceremony at the Yuri Dologorukiy submarine, the first in the Project 955 class, Commander of the Russian Navy reported that the Navy "paid special attention to the torpedo armament [of the new submarine] and its capability to carry long-range cruise missiles." That is, of course, in addition to the 16 Bulava ballistic missiles that will be deployed on Project 955 submarines.
The cruise missile in question is most likely the 3M10/RK-55 Granat or maybe a newer missile, Kalibr (which was recently tested in a launch from the Severodvinsk Project 885 attack submarine). The missiles can be launched from one of the eight standard 533-mm torpedo tubes deployed on Project 955 boats. A submarine of this class is reported to carry up to 40 weapons that could use torpedo tubes, but these would include torpedoes and anti-ship missiles as well as long-range SLCMs. These cruise missiles, of course, can carry nuclear warheads, although at this point there is no reason to believe that they will.
Setting aside the question why would a strategic missile submarine need long-range SLCMs on board, this is an interesting development that brings back the discussion of whether Russia counts long-range SLCMs as strategic delivery vehicles and therefore whether it believes they should be covered by the 1992 pledge to remove all tactical nuclear weapons from its surface ships and submarines.
I looked into this issue some time ago and I believe that my main conclusion still stands - Russia did remove all nuclear SLCMs from its submarines and reported zero deployed missiles in its annual declarations. I would still argue that in doing so Russia effectively accepted that long-range SLCMs are non-strategic systems, but I admit that it is not a very strong argument. As long as the START reporting arrangement was in place, it provided an enforcement mechanism of sorts, but it expired with the START treaty in December 2009, so nothing prevents Russia from asserting its position that long-range nuclear SLCMs are not covered by the 1992 pledge. There is a proposal to resume the START SLCM data exchange, but I don't see why Russia would agree to do that. More likely, it will prefer to maintain ambiguity and to leave its options open.
Any discussion of further nuclear reductions would have to deal with SLCM anyway, so it's not something that would derail the process (not that it needs help with that). But the grey status of nuclear SLCMs as systems that are not covered by New START but at the same time not really non-strategic would definitely complicate things.
Comments
It makes sense to consider Cruise Missile which does not have continental range as sub-strategic weapons.
Since sub-strategic/Tactical weapons like N-Armed Cruise missile are not covered under any treaty which has binding legal obligations like New START types then carying such nuclear armed cruise missile would offer interesting targeting options perhaps would even act as sub-threshold weapon before yealding the armada or weapons that can deal with rough states.
There were talks to that effect some time back by General Staff and MOD officials on the use of Low yeald Weapon on submarine armed with cruise missile
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/russia-considers-nuclear-armed-cruise-missiles-for-submarines/
***** Probably, tactical nuclear weapons (on submarines) will play a key role in the future," said Vice Adm. Oleg Burtsev, deputy chief of the Navy General Staff. "Their range and precision are gradually increasing."
"There is no longer any need to equip missiles with powerful nuclear warheads. We can install low-yield warheads on existing cruise missiles," he added (RIA Novosti, March 23).******
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-deploys-new-nuclear-cruise-missiles-1656057.html
######In December, the chief of the Russian general staff, General Nikolai Makarov, said Russia will keep its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, which he said were necessary to counter a massive Nato advantage in conventional weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons have a much shorter range compared to strategic nuclear weapons. They are intended for use within a theatre of battle. Earlier this week, the Russian navy’s deputy chief of staff said the role of tactical nuclear weapons in the Russian navy may grow. Vice-Admiral Oleg Burtsev said the increasing range and precision of tactical nuclear weapons makes them an important asset.########
It is entirely possible that the tube launched complement of Project 955 is entire for self-defense, which would include torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles. There is no real need for a boomer to carry anti-surface missiles, since its arsenal is limited and any offensive launch from a strategic submarine could be destabilizing.
Novator's 3M10 (Granat) and 3M14 (Kalibr) are such anti-surface missile. On the other hand, 3M54 is an anti-ship missile and could be used by a boomer for self-defense, while still qualifying as a "long-range cruise missile" the Admiral mentioned.
All of these missiles are dual-coded, and can carry both the "special warhead" and the conventional charge, so deploying them does not violate any pledges made.
artjomh , If having anti-ship missile was such a critical requirement for a submarine survival how is it the current SSBN do not have them ? Ofcourse may be the long range torpedoes like SS-N-16 can do the task at stand off distance but ships were always there before and so was the threat to SSBN.
There is little incentive to have a long range anti-ship missile for SSBN as targetting data is a serious problem to make them useful for long ranges but on the other hand having a Special Warhead LACM is more useful to keep the threshold low and keeping the stand off distance as large as possible.
There is also evidence that Tactical Warhead is considered as useful by general staff to counter massive NATO Conventional Superiority and the range and precision of LACM makes it more useful.
I think it add ups to the fact that the Cruise Missile in question for new SSBN are Special Warhead type with low yeald weapons perhaps even in few kt or even Sub Kilton and not the 300 kt Granat Types. Not that you cant achieve a few kt to tens of them with the same warhead using Dial a yeald types.