Pavel:

This does make the setback to Bulava very significant. Based on these assumptions, the Russian Navy has few strategic assets capable of deterrent patrol. With the near obsolescence of the Delta III fleet, do we have any idea of the life of the remaining Soviet R-29RM (SS-N-23) missile? I thought these missiles were long past test certification but perhaps I’m wrong. I think most of us that follow the progress of the Russian Navy assumed the entire Delta IV fleet has been updated to carry the Sineva thinking the Sineva and the older Soviet R-29RMs were “structurally compatible” and only fire control equipment and such on the host submarines would need updating. The Sineva was simply an all-Russian manufactured version of the older SS-N-23.

Another observation and a question. The manufacturing of the Sineva was considered a big success story. It had a quick development track and an excellent trial to great fanfare. Given that, why has Russia had such a struggle getting these missiles to sea? Or, have our assumptions always been wrong? And where?

Frank Shuler
USA

As most 667BRDM were overhauled and just the Tula carries the Sineva, that means that remaining 667BRDM will be reloaded with Sineva in the near future because it is senseless to overhaul a SSBM just to keep empty. In the end, likely overhauled Dolphins will serve the Navy past the 2020 timeframe with the new SLBMs.

This makes sense. 2007 alone saw 10 Sineva produced. If only 16 were made that would mean serial production started in 2006 with 6 missiles.

Interesting. T-90A production (for the Russian Army) started in 2006. So did the BMD-4 production. So did BMP-3 production. So did S-400 production, and so did Su-34 production. That seems to be the start year for almost all the weapons programs. The exception is the Iskander complex which the army only received in 2007. However the original plan was for the army to receive it in 2006.

Is this an accurate summary of the Delta IVs?

K51- Verkhoturie – first to undergo refit in 1999 – may or may not be operational

K-84 Ekaterinburg -- possible test boat but capable of launching Sineva

K-114 Tula – operational with Sineva

K-117 Bryansk – pending sea trials from refit and should be Sineva capable

K-18 Karelia – under refit

K-407 Novomoskovsk – pending refit when dock space frees

Frank Shuler
USA

Feanor: The plan was to produce 12 Sineva missiles in 2007. I haven't seen reports that said that 10 were produced. Do you have a link?

Frank: Yes, that seems to be the status of the 667BDRM fleet.

How many warhead carry the Sineva. 4 or 10MIRV?

Dor: The R-29RM missile was reportedly tested with 10 warheads early in the development, but it apparently has never been deployed with more than 4. START Treaty lists SS-N-23 (this would include Sineva) as carrying 4 warheads.

> If indeed only 16 new missiles have been produced so far, as seems to be the case, then Tula is the only submarine of the Project 667BDRM class that carries operational missiles.

- Rumors, based on guesses... and guesses based on rumors.

- Meantime, it seems that START MOU is published:

http://news.mail.ru/politics/1685865/print/

(Article entitled: 'US only imitate the process of nuclear disarmament').

Main points of the article:

a) 848 Russian strategic carriers vs 1225 US ones.

b) Russia will hardly try to have an agreement about not only 'warheads limitation', but also 'strategic carriers limitation'.

c) Washington creates the 'backward potential' - an ability to easily and quickly reinstall 'dismantled' warheads back to the strategic carriers.

- If negotiations about strategic carriers limitation will fail, the world will be divided into military blocks again.

It's really a sad story of Russian Navy. It's quite unbelievable that Russian navy is unable to maintain few operational subs. Mounting 4 warheads on Sineva make no sense. It should be at least 8MIRV. A very costly subs with 16 missiles and 64 warheads is waste of money. I think 16 missiles should carry 128 warheads to maintain a capable subs fleet. It seems that Russian Navy will have very few operational subs in future.

And I wonder how such a great Navy was destroyed within a few years!

Russian:

However, throw-weight of deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs (MT) favors Russia 2373.5 to only 1826.1. What must American do to overcome such a disadvantage? Silly argument, isn’t it?

Most of the American “advantage” rest with our Trident submarine fleet. The US is downloading the payload of the Trident missile to four warheads each to comply with the SORT Treaty that goes into effect December 31, 2012 and expired January 1st 2013. The US indeed has stated its intentions to maintain an overall inventory of 2000 W-76 and 400 W-88 warheads with 1152 operationally deployed on twelve submarines. Those numbers aren’t as severe as one might think as only six submarines are routinely on patrol at any given time; four on station and two in transit.

I think the number of launchers is irrelevant. The key is an absolute limit on nuclear warheads, period. Today, Russia has 10,000 nuclear weapons and the United States has approximately 5,000. Would Russia be willing to reduce the number of warheads in her arsenal to 2500 weapons if the United States agreed likewise? Or 2000 warheads? 1500? If the answer to that question is yes, then there is something to negotiate. If the answer is no, there’s nothing to negotiate. I guess my question is, “What is Russia willing to “give up” to have the security guaranties it needs”?

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank:

Where do you get your information on the number of SSBNs on patrol/transit?

Rich

Rich:

For me, it’s only an educated guess. Tracking the Kings Bay relocation of boats to Bangor and the C4 conversion to D5, the number of unaccounted submarines always seems to be around six. If that is the “right number” on patrol, it’s logical to assume that four boats are “on station” with one headed out and one in transit back to base. Aviation Week and Space Technology in an article several years ago drew the conclusion that 40% of the Trident fleet was as sea. I think that assumption was based on the total inventory of 14 submarines and that the deployment schedule had not changed from the old Soviet “Cold War” days.

Again, just an “unclassified” guess.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank:

Should have done it in one post, but needed to verify some information. You numbers are close, but are the minimum number of boats out at sea. There are never less than 3 boats at a time at sea on either coast. SSBNs I mean. I verified this with a reputable source. Not to try and shoot down your information, but add to your wealth of knowledge you already have.

But your argument is difficult to swallow about the payload of each country. While Russia may have double the number of nuclear weapons as the U.S. you have to take into account the actual deliverable amount capable by each country. This site has shown that the number of Russian warhead deliverable to the US is "probably" less that published.

Rich

Pavel:

>...Tula is the only submarine of the Project 667BDRM class that carries operational missiles.

Sineva isn't the only operational missiles for the 667BDRM project, but old Skif missiles are still operational...

So, between the 90 R-29RM missiles listed in the navy inventory, there are at least 16 Sineva, and up to 76 - Skif.

Status of World Nuclear Forces 2008.

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nukestatus.html

Rich:

So a clearer assumption is that out of 12 deployable submarines, the US Navy always has at least six boats on patrol. My inference would be the Navy would then have two boats in transit or, at the least, two submarines ready to sortie. Most interesting; thanks for the share.

Rich, take any opportunity to add to my knowledge on this matter. Your insights are priceless and greatly appreciated.

Russia wants to reduce the American nuclear arsenal to a level more in keeping with its capability. President Putin has always stated his goal of reducing the number of deployed nuclear weapons to only 1500 warheads for both sides. I suspect the Russian inventory of such weapons will fall to that number by 2018-20 no matter what the Americans do. However, by keeping such a large inventory of warheads, Russian can, say, arm a nuclear version of the Iskander missile system or develop its successor that can serve as a regional deterrent. If the INF Treaty is set aside, Russia could build an IRBM kind of weapon. Such a weapon system wouldn’t be “strategic” in the sense it couldn’t threaten the US (Alaska notwithstanding) and would allow Russia to face the emerging nuclear powers on its border. This is a real and serious issue for the Kremlin in the future. However, the United States has no reason to negotiate unless Russia has something to trade in return. That was my original point.

Frank Shuler
USA

It is quite likely that some “old” R-29RM have been subject to some extension-life process analogous to those for the RS-18 and the RS-20. After all most R-29RM are newer than most deployed liquid fuel ICBM.

Victor, Kolokol: You are right - old R-29RM must still be deployed. However, it haven't been tested for quite a while - probably since 2004 when it failed. Am I wrong?

Any time another missile was tested for a service life extension it has been widely publicized. It would be a strange situation if the R-29RM was tested, extended, and then kept secret. My "guess" is that the Russian Military assumed that the Sineva production would go faster and there would be no need to extend the R-29RM. Now that they are a little behind schedule they are keeping things quiet on the R-29RM to avoid "embarrassment" for poor planning.

Again...just my guess.

Rich

Frank:

I think number of launchers does matter. You cannot do anything with 10000 warheads if you don't have launchers. I think the US is much better position with larger number of delivery systems. Number of Russian launchers will be shrinking further when all the heavy liquid fuel ICBM will be withdrawn from service. In that time the US will be far more superior than Russia. Yes, trident alone will be enough to deal with Russia.

Those that failed during the 2004 tests, ...test Sineva?

Kolokol: Right now I'm not sure which tests were Sineva and which were not. The missiles that failed in 2004 most likely were old R-29RM. But it does seem that there were no "old R-29RM" tests for quite a while.

Parimal Debnath

Just to speculate, if the number of Russian strategic launchers and operational warheads fall to the previously discussed 1500 number, what can Russia do to redress the balance, by treaty, with the United States? What does Russia have to trade to entice the United States to agree to a lower number of deployed nuclear warheads? How does Russia get the US to agree to a limit of say, 1500 warheads?

Frank Shuler
USA

Pavel, If you are not sure, what can I (an amateur) say?
Supposedly the test of September-2004 was carried out to fix the flaws detected during tests of April-2004 with Putin as VIP witness. I don’t know what type of SLBM was tested but supposedly the flaws were identified and fixed. There is an article from Nicolai Sokov on the net commenting something. I will search and link.

http://www.wmdinsights.com/I22/I22_RU1_RussiaTestsNew.htm

http://www.wmdinsights.com/I18/I18_R3_Update-BulavaTest.htm

I will search also for something in Russian.

Parimal Debnath:

Interesting, I've studied first nuclear strike for quite some time now. And my conclusion is greatly different. I assume you've done a lot of research on the subject too? If so could you please lay forward a scenario how it could be done successfully? Take into account all factors and of course clarify all technical aspects.

Kolokol: I'm not sure Nikolai Sokov from WMDInsight has information that is any better than available to me and you.

Anyway, my point is that the original R-29RM is an old missile, so I wouldn't be surprised if it is far beyond its normal service life. As I look at the recent R-29RM tests, I can see only one launch that I can reliably identify as "old R-29RM" - the two failed attempts in February 2004, from Novomoskovsk and Karelia.

There was a successful launch in June 2004, this time from Ekaterinburg, but we don't know if it was an "old R-29RM". If Ekaterinburg was indeed a test bed for Sineva, that may have been a Sineva launch.

It is quite possible that the two failures in February 2004 were the last time the Navy tried to launch "old R-29RM". As far as I can tell, all subsequent launches were either from Ekaterinburg or from Tula and most of them were identified as Sineva launches.

Pavel, may you build a list of launches of R-29 (any type) from 2004? May be this can help a little bit. May be you are rigth. Honestly I don't know.

Is it possible that old R-29RM were upgraded to Sineva standard as an interim solution?
And does the Russian Navy use an rotation system transfering missiles from one boat which is docked to another going to sea similar to the Britains who don´t have enough Tridents for their four SSBN?

Martin

Kolokol: I almost did - follow the links in the body of the post and in my previous comment. Or use seach to look for post that have "R-29RM" - you'll get the list.

Martin: No, normally missiles are not transferred from one submarine to another. These are liquid-fuel missiles and their loading and unloading is a dangerous and delicate procedure. I guess it can be done, but this is not something the navy would do unless they absolutely have to.

Martin:

Based on my research, the British actually do have a full compliment of Trident missiles for their four Vanguard Class SSBNs. I believe this was confirmed when the British Ministry of Defense went through their Trident upgrade schedule, the decision to join with the US Navy to update the D5 system to serve until 2038. This decision was voted on by the British Parliament and documents were published that indicated the British arsenal of nuclear warheads would fall to approximately 200. (16 launchers and 3 warheads per submarine) Your point however is well made. The French have a total of four Le Triomphant class SSBN submarines but only have operational missiles for three boats as the forth is always in refit. (16 launchers and 6 warheads per submarine)

Completely agree with Pavel. Trying to relocate R-29RM, or its Sineva cousin, between boats in the fleet would be nearly impossible in an operational sense. Little efficiency would be gained.

Just wanted to add my thoughts to the conversation.

Frank Shuler
USA

I still feel that Russia is getting bogged down with SLBM's. I know I'll take some flak for this but I still say the money for SSBN's and SLBM's would be better spent on more Topol-M's (a lot more) and possibly a new liquid fuel heavy ICBM to replace the R-36M2. Unlike the U.S., Russia is large enough that centrally located launchers have more than enough warning time from SLBM launches off the coast, negating the need for an SSBN based deterrent force.

In the end, to conclude that R-29RM doesn’t work because two launches failed during feubrary-2004 seems to be a risky and/or erroneous. I still remember the Operation Behemoth when a 667BDRM launched flawlessly a complete salvo of R-29RM missiles. Of course, it was many years ago but a little time ago the Sv. Georgiy Pobedonosets launched an older R-29R missile.
Of course these two failed launched must be considered but also must be considered that all subsequent launches were all successful. It is not clear what corresponded to Sineva and what to older R-29RM. The likely conclusion is that there are some empty tubes on the 667BDRM, most tubes load R-29RM and some tubes load Sineva but all (or most) have operational missiles. Just my opinion.

> However, throw-weight of deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs (MT) favors Russia 2373.5 to only 1826.1. What must American do to overcome such a disadvantage? Silly argument, isn’t it?

- Why silly, Frank? US have a GREAT advantage in number of warheads and strategic missile delivery platforms. It's quite enough for not to worry about moderate (mostly semi-mythical, - see below why), 'advantage' of Russia in a throw-weight.

- Also, - you have completely ignored the fact that this, semi-mythical, 'advantage in throwweight', - it's empty advantage for Russia; practically, all this advantage is due to SS-18 Satan great throwweight; and you know that numbers of warheads at Satans is limited to 10 by international treaty, while every Satan is able to carry up to 50 warheads (so 10/50 = 20 % of 'Satans' throwweight - is a real menace, and 40/50 = 80 % - is an empty throweight, just to fool NMD radars).

- So, as you can see, Russian ICBM's REAL throwweight is HARDLY restricted by bilateral treaties, - anyone MUST understand it.

- The times when Russia or US was able to 'wipe out from the face of Earth', let's say, - New York or Moscow, - with a single 10-MT or 25-MT warhead, - was gone. Now, the number of rather small warheads and their strategic carriers, - are ultimate arguments.

I think that US strategists understand the situation with this 'Russian advantage in throwweight', - QUITE CLEARLY.

> Most of the American “advantage” rest with our Trident submarine fleet. The US is downloading the payload of the Trident missile to four warheads each to comply with the SORT Treaty that goes into effect December 31, 2012 and expired January 1st 2013. The US indeed has stated its intentions to maintain an overall inventory of 2000 W-76 and 400 W-88 warheads with 1152 operationally deployed on twelve submarines. Those numbers aren’t as severe as one might think as only six submarines are routinely on patrol at any given time; four on station and two in transit.

- Well, if a compromise will not be found, Russia will need to increase the number of ICBMs and SLBMs operationally deployed, up to the 75 % level of the US ones.

And may be to even a higher level, up to the 80 - 90 %.

> I think the number of launchers is irrelevant. The key is an absolute limit on nuclear warheads, period. Today, Russia has 10,000 nuclear weapons and the United States has approximately 5,000.

- Frank, you have placed 'into the one heap' two quite different problems, and I suppose, - you have made it intentionally. Here the arguments:

(a) Strategic nukes & carriers is one thing, and tactical nukes & carriers is quite other.

(b) If you want to have negotiations about tactical nukes limitation, - you MUST to take into account conventional forces in Europe; presently, NATO and US have near (3 : 1) ratio in conventional forces, regarding to the Russian ones...

Most Russian people consider this situation as INACCEPTABLE.

Not only 'Kremlin' - but virtually all russian people. Just try to believe this.

> Would Russia be willing to reduce the number of warheads in her arsenal to 2500 weapons if the United States agreed likewise? Or 2000 warheads? 1500?

- I know many guys in US and Pentagon (and probably you, Frank), - still cherish this 'silver dream' about Russian vulnerability to the NATO's conventional forces. Guys, forget about it. Russia will NEVER made itself vulnerable to NATO, and our tactical nukes will help us to defend ourselves from the wild NATO hordes. ;-)

> If the answer to that question is yes, then there is something to negotiate. If the answer is no, there’s nothing to negotiate. I guess my question is, “What is Russia willing to “give up” to have the security guaranties it needs”?

- I (and most people in Russia, - I sure) do consider these words as a typical example of American / NATO 'dirty double game'. It's absolutely clear to any unbiassed observer that all these tactical nukes just serve as a deterrent tool to prevent NATO aggression, - again, see at ratio of conventional forces.

So, I'll answer to your recent post about 'what incentive Russia may propose': the one and only incentive Russia may propose, - it's Russian peaceful politics. Since 1990, Russia makes no war at any place in the world.

- 18 years of 'Russian peace', Frank! Well, are the guys at West still believe that Russia is 'Empire of Evil'?

You NEED to compare this behaviour with your own country & NATO imperialist politics that still killing innocent people in many places of the world.

'In the name of democracy', of course...

Or maybe 'in the name of oil and resources'?

So, we can conclude that double game and lie isn't affordable. Military agression against independent contries is not affordable, too.

Empty words and promises that 'NATO expansion is not a threat to Russia' can't impress anymore, - it's a time for clear understanding:

http://news.mail.ru/politics/1691331/print/

And finally, - main points from Putin's speech at Russia - NATO summit:

'Russia consider expansion of NATO to the Russian borders as a DIRECT THREAT to the Russian national security'.

- Again, this is not only 'Kremlin' point of view.
- It's not even a Russia's point of view.
- I hope people of the world will share this opinion with us.

Russian:

Your grasp of the satire is impressive. NATO and the “silver dream”? Conquest of Russia? I admire your imagination. What “vulnerabilities” does Russia have in relation to NATO?

If we’re not working to reduce the total inventories of Russian and American nuclear arsenals, then what is the future of mutual arms agreements? None I can see.

I always enjoy our “conversations”.

Frank Shuler
USA

- Some news about Yuri Dolgorukiy, Bulava, future Russian aircraft carriers and entire Russian Navy program, - Head Commander of Russian Navy Vladimir Vysotsky told us at today's press-conference:

(a) Yuri Dolgorukiy will go to sea trials in this year; presently, 'YD' readiness is 94 %. Citation: 'It does not matter will Yuri Dolgorukiy go to sea trials in June 2008 or a month later, - anyway it will go to trials in this year'.

(b) Citation: 'Bulava will fly in this year; we will increase the number of test flights'.

(c) Russian Navy needs 5 - 6 aircraft carriers [probably, of 50000-tonn class], deployed at Arctic and Pacific Oceans.

(d) Russian Navy exercises, similar to the ones of December 2007 - February 2008, will be repeated in this year in the increased scale.

Original is here:

http://news.mail.ru/politics/1691357/print/

Frank:

You know that the number of delivery systems (and warheads as well) of the USSR and then Russia (up to nineties) was much bigger than that of the US. It was the SU which always destroyed bigger number of launcher than the US did in every disarmament treaty. It is now Americans' turn(!)to destroy bigger number of launchers/warheads (operational warheads) compare to Russia to make the delivery systems or warheads level equal. You may argue but I think both the countries should have similar number of warheads and launchers, if possible. That will maintain a good strategic balance between the two countries and a good world order. It will also reduce the mistrust and misunderstanding between twos. And I like a minimum level of nuclear arsenals.

KSI:

I am also an amateur. I don't have much knowledge I mean technical knowledge about nuclear arsenals. I have great interest in Physics so curiosity about nuclear arsenals and space science. Thanks to Pavel I am learning many things from this resourceful blog site.

Russian

I agree with points (a), (b) and (d).
Issue (c): I think it is just a waste of money. Better to redirect the money to the submarine fleet and the civil ship-building industry.

Russian:

I am afraid it will be very difficult for Russian Navy to complete flight tests of Bulava within next 8 months! It will be a herculean task to make Yuri Dolgoruky operational with Bulava by this year! Lets see how they go! Navy Admiral was talking about 2050-2060 time frame for 5-6 aircraft carriers. When Navy should seriously think about the present poor condition, he was talking about what would happen in 2050-2060!!! I can't understand what Russian really plan about future!

5-6 aircraft carriers? He's mentally challenged if he thinks that's even remotely possible. If Russia had a lot of money to spend on our navy, then I can see room for 2-3 carriers (one northern, and 1-2 pacific fleet). But the Baltic fleet is acting within easy range of ground-based airbases, as well as the black sea. Moreover in a major conflict those navies could end up trapped, and the force projecting capacity of their CVBG's would be simply lost. Having more then 2-3 CVBG's would imply that russia is aiming for global force projection much like the United States currently has. This is absolutely wrong in terms of the current military doctrine, unnecessary in terms of the security situation, and generally very expensive. When Russian troops are getting new tanks at the rate of 31 annually..... he's talking about a huge fleet-building program..... remember each carrier also needs aircraft complement (so around 4-5 new carriers Kuznetsov class would mean around 120 new Su-33s) and accompanying ships. All of this also requires huge maintenance facilities. This sounds unrealistic and unnecessary, even if the time frame in question is 2020.

To Russian:
ad c) This seems very unrealistic. All the attempts from UK and France and Russia to maintain an even small fleet of (so called) aircraft carriers in the past were far from being meaningful or military effective.
Apart from the fact that Kuznetsov very seldom went to sea, an aircraft carrier is just the tip of an iceberg. What counts and what makes the operation of such ships possible is a huge land-based support and a modern fleet of escorts - all this is missing.
It is time to understand the lessons of the german navy in the first half of the past century: apart of all struggle...some nations will never be able to have a high ocean fleet....sometimes simply because of geographic reasons (that usually leads to an overrating of the importance of submarines and long range missiles).
It may be hard to swallow but with the decrepit Udaloys and Sovremenji moored most time in their harbours Russia is far away from deploying aircraft carries on the high sea. Even if you have some money to spend..its much like the posture of Arab Monarchs to show a golden sword or Kalashnikov.
There is just one nation left which have the know how and the resources to back up a real sea-going carrier fleet...and that's the US.

I would disagree. The problem isn't that Russia can't maintain a carrier fleet potentially. The problem is that Russia doesn't have the support facilities, production facilities, or current finances, to do so. It would take decades to develop them. As for the Kuznetsov, it just returned from it's recent cruise to the Atlantic, and another cruise is planned this year. It almost seems like practice in preparation for fielding a CVBG.

You also left India and China out of the picture. India currently has one aircraft carrier, is purchasing another one from Russia and building two indigenous ones, with the current one slated for retiring around the 2010 time frame. I think that India is well on it's way to having a number of light aircraft carriers. While they're not the force projecting mechanisms that American super carriers are, their real purpose is more of a fleet air defense role then providing strike capabilities and air support in major operations. China's plans are unknown, but they're likely to be along the same lines. Within the same picture, while I don't see 5-6 carriers for Russia, I can definetly see 2-3 operational carriers by around the 2030 time frame (provided all else goes well).

Frank: I thought that the British have a total lease of 58 Tridents from the US. So there should be around 55 left after test shots, thats less than the 62 needed to fill all boats. Or have they ordered some more missiles?
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/k52425n3320m8644/fulltext.pdf

Hi Feanor!
Well, I had India and China in mind, too.
But when you are saying
"their real purpose is more of a fleet air defense role then providing strike capabilities and air support in major operations"...
it just means that all the "light aircraft carrier" philosophy is questionable.
India has not a high ocean fleet. And there is no need for. So they are marching out some 1000 miles into the Indic...to protect some of their own destroyers? They easily can do that with land based aircraft up to a certain range. Beyond that it is ridiculous for such nations "to control the sea".
That counts also for the curious movements of china to rebuild or reconstruct certain "Varyags".
But lets assume they set this ship (or another one) active...so what? They will be never in a position to control their long international supply lines sufficiently. A huge network of allied nations and bases is necessary to maintain that.
So they will march out into the Japanese Sea ...or to cruise next to Taiwan...and all under coverage of enemy airforces and with only some 24 aircrafts with rather limited all-aspect capabilities and not designed (like in the US philosophy) as a carrier aircraft from the outset!
The struggle of France and UK to keep a small carrier fleet running is symptomatically.
When the "DeGaulle" was in overhaul the french pilots had to continue training on US carriers ( http://www.patricksaviation.com/photos/SAS73/17692/ ).
Those nations are simply at the edge of the following decision: to stop playing around with so called "light carries" and to build real carriers (complement of at least 60 ac) AND escorts...but that would mean a fleet of at least 4 to 6 ships to have a real military option, or to fool their tax-payers and to continue to play the costly game of "showing the flag"...
BTW: The operation of NATO ships off the Somalian Coast Line "to control movements of Al Kaida" is saying much about the new threats and our way to find a useful sense for "fleets in being".
And the german tay-payer was told that the 6 Dolphin boats with air-independend propulsion and a cost of 500 Mio Euro each has in mind new "observation needs" regarding "asymmetric threats" comming from international terrorism....

Feanor

According to Kommersant, Russia may reacquire the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov from India. Apparently New Delhi baulked at the cost overruns in the refit work and rejected some of the workmanship on the conversion. India also is set to decline the navalized MIG 29(k) carrier aircraft that were to arm the carrier. Both governments are now in the process of negotiating a buy-back agreement and how much ending the agreement will cost India. Perhaps this is the nucleus of the new Russian Navy carrier force? However, I agree with you. Russia hasn’t the infrastructure to support such a force and the investment in such will take away resources from building programs that do need funding, submarines and surface warfare ships. To maintain a single carrier always deployed in the Arctic and Pacific Oceans will require a force of 10 ships. Otherwise, all this is just prestige. I consider the Admiral Kuznetsov such a “prestige ship” and not a real combat vessel.

On a slightly different note, I still think MIG will be successful selling its modernized MIG-35 to India in a contract for some 130 new fighters to be decided later this year. It’s Russia order to lose; everyone else is struggling to compete.

Frank Shuler
USA

What the hell will Russian carriers accomplish that Russian land based aviation can't? If the issue is sea control in the Persian Gulf/Indian Ocean area, how will one or (a slim chance of) two Russian carrier groups hope to compete against what the United States can throw into the Gulf of Oman? What interest does Russia have in projecting power outside the Barents Sea, the Norwegian Sea, the Arctic Ocean or the North Pacific that can't be done with a successor to the Bear or Backfire?

As an American, if the Russians want to waste resources on carrier groups, ya golosuyu ZA!

Perhaps the Russians should devote their resources to keeping at least one SSBN on patrol 365 days/year and actually getting s solid fuel SLBM to work before they try for something as complex and expensive as multiple carrier battle groups whose utility and strategic purpose are unclear at best.

The benefit of an organic air arm accompanying Russian ships out to sea is huge. It provides timely and capable air defense against potential threats, as well as recon and AEW capabilities. The philosophy of light carriers is a completely valid one. In fact due to the continuing drop in the number of aircraft on American carriers (the newest ones will have an air wing of 75) we may see a day and time when they will no longer be super carriers either. But my main point is that Russia first needs to sort out other problems. Trying to create this currently is next to impossible.

Frank do you have a link to the buy back deal, as well as the plans to re-induct the Gorshkov into the Russian Navy? Because I'm very skeptical of that kind of an outcome. The Gorshkov is a rebuilt Kiev class with MiG-29K's meant to be the air wing. It would require ordering the K's for the Russian naval aviation, training additional pilots on a new type of aircraft, and somehow creating escort ships for it from what's left operational in the Russian Navy.

Feanor

The news article was recently posted in Kommersant. You can do a search for “Russian Navy” in their archives and pull the brief document. The deal was interesting. The Indian Navy received the carrier, the old Kiev-class, free of charge and paid only for the refit and rebuilding work. This work was to turn the Admiral Gorshkov, a VTOL carrier, into a warship with a full-deck and ability to support the MIG 29(K)’s that were originally manufactured for use on the Admiral Kuznetsov. I’m very curious as to how this design turned out. However, it seems the refit fell into huge cost overruns and New Delhi decided to end payments. Now Russia is stuck with the ship and is in discussions with India on some kind of settlement. It’s only speculation at this point whether the ship will ultimately be completed or that the Russian Navy will accept the ship into the fleet.

Big mess.

Frank Shuler
USA

As I read the main news here some Russian "admiral" carries on stories about six carriers which means 300 combat planes on-board!
You should know that in maximum ten years entire Russian Air Force will possess less than 300 combat planes...

Forsooth, level of destruction of Russian Armed Forces is unimaginable! The country which once possessed alone two times more arms than all NATO members combined will fall below France level...

However it can't be opposite if Russia doesn't buy practically any kind of new weapons since USSR's breakup!

Condor your knowledge is outdated. As of 2006 Russia has launched a reconstruction program that, if all else goes well, will end up modernizing the bulk of the armed forces by around the 2020-25 time frame.

Frank I found a few articles on the matter, but it seems like an unlikely development. I wonder if Admiral Gorshkov can accept Su-33's? Because the MiG-29K is not currently serving in the VVS iirc. It would certainly speak volumes about changing attitudes in the Russian naval command if the ship is inducted into the Russian Navy.

> If the issue is sea control in the Persian Gulf/Indian Ocean area, how will one or (a slim chance of) two Russian carrier groups hope to compete against what the United States can throw into the Gulf of Oman?

- Relax please, we have no any intentions 'to compete against the United States in the Gulf of Oman'... All that in the Gulf / Middle East, - is a completely American problem; US have created these problems, so US need to resolve them.

> As an American, if the Russians want to waste resources on carrier groups, ya golosuyu ZA!

- As an American, you have no a right to vote PRO or CONTRA. It's a completely Russian right... :-)

> Perhaps the Russians should devote their resources to keeping at least one SSBN on patrol 365 days/year and actually getting s solid fuel SLBM to work before they try for something as complex and expensive as multiple carrier battle groups whose utility and strategic purpose are unclear at best.

- Why 'multiple carrier battle groups' 'strategic purpose' is unclear? Contrary, it is absolutely clear: 5 - 6 carriers of 50000-tonn class, may be considered as a good answer to the future NATO's airbases along the Russian borders.

> What the hell will Russian carriers accomplish that Russian land based aviation can't?

- Just imagine a fleet of 200 or 300 Su-33Ks, where every plane is armed with 2 nuclear-tipped air-to-ground SRAMs... ;-)

Martin

I stand corrected; I think you are exactly correct. My confusion came from the fact that the Royal Navy’s Trident undergoes “depot maintenance” back in the US. The British MOD report stated the Royal Navy had a full compliment of Trident missiles but this did not take into consideration missiles back in the US for service. My revised conclusion is that the fleet is always short of a full 4-boat operational inventory. I do think the 58 number is right. Also, I think their leasing agreement covers replacement of any test launches. In other words, the 58 Trident missiles in inventory are constant. (I’m taking an educated guess here.)

Thanks for clearing this up for me!

Frank Shuler
USA

Feanor

I guess the answer on the Su-33s is that we just don’t know. Between the carrier version of the MIG and the Sukhoi Su-33 (Su-27K), the big issue is weight. The Sukhoi is a much heavier aircraft. Was the Admiral Gorshkov rebuilt to handle such? To make the matter worse from Russia’s point of view is that India put significant development funds into the Mikoyan MIG-29Ks (India had 16 on order) with new radar systems, upgraded engines, updated fly-by-wire controls, additional weapon storage points, and conformal fuel tanks to extend the range. According to Aviation Week & Space Technology, this order has been in jeopardy for sometime. Having the Indian Navy also flying the MIG-29 was suppose to give Mikoyan an advantage in the upcoming Indian Air Force competition for a new 130 aircraft buy but I think that order is still Russia’s to lose.

If the “new” Admiral Gorshkov is accepted back into the Russian Navy, it remains to be seen if this warship has value. I have my doubts too. Who knows? Perhaps, China would be interested.

Frank Shuler
USA

> Having the Indian Navy also flying the MIG-29 was suppose to give Mikoyan an advantage in the upcoming Indian Air Force competition for a new 130 aircraft buy but I think that order is still Russia’s to lose.

- Frank, your opinion here could not be objective, because Russia and US are counterparts in this, really great, tender: US is really interested in proliferation on the Indian market, it's own F-16I with an advanced active array radar.

- I think we will be enough objective if we let to Indian people to decide what they want: super-manoeuvrable MiG-29OVT a.k.a. MiG-35, F-16I with an advanced radar or maybe fighter from Europe.

Russian 5-6 carrier groups are a completely useless asset. If Russia was a rich country with a powerful modern military and money to throw away, then maybe they could have found some use for them. As is there are too many other things that need to be dealt with. Another issue is of course the fact that the Russian Navy has no real operating doctrine of it's own, nor does it have a proposed force structure. Until those two issues are resolved all this talk about future vessels is just talk.

Russian
My opinion here is entirely objective.

Frank Shuler
USA

Feanor: No, you completely don't know what is going on in this area! If you mean so called "15 years rearmament plan" announced two years ago, I must tell you it is a pure propaganda cheat! In practice nothing is done as scheduled according to this plan. Even requested amount of money still lacks in Russian military budget year after year.
Get informed more about real situation in Russian armed forces and military complex, buddy. It may look very strange but there is identical destruction of both as during Yeltsin times! Simply less believe in official "positive informations" found in headlines of Russian state controlled mass-media.

"Watch how many new weapons was in fact acquired, not how many was planned to acquire!"

Condor I keep very careful track of weapon procurement for the Russian military. I pay almost no attention whatsoever to the announced re-armament plans. For your information the T-90A production line for the Russian Army finally started in 2006, with two tank battallions procured, and two more in production for this year. BTR production has been at around 100-200 annually, re-arming 4 battallions annually. BMP-3M has entered production also in 2006 and has been going at the rate of a single battallion annually. BMD-4 has entered serial production in 2006, with 10 delivered in 2006 and 2007 (and a number of BMD-3's refitted to the BMD-4 standard), and 30 planned for delivery in 2008. A single regiment of S-400 systems has been procured (consisting of 2 battallions) with another scheduled to be added to the inventory this year. Tu-160M production has been restarted with 3 existing bombers modernized annually and two new bombers produced every 3 years. The first new bomber has already been added to the inventory. Su-34 production started in late 2006, with two aircraft delivered in 2007, and 6 more scheduled for delivery this year. Upgrade of the Su-27 fleet to the Su-27SM standard began iirc last year, with 24 airframes already upgraded, and 24 more undergoing upgrade right now. Upgrade of the Su-24M fleet to the Su-24M2 standard is continuing at around 20 airframes annually. Serial production of the Mi-28 has begun this year, with the preproduction batch delivered in 2007, and the first two serially produced helicopters delivered to the troops several weeks ago. Ka-50 and Ka-52 production for Spetznaz forces is continuing at the rate of several units annually (5 in 2007). This is an intensification of production compared to the massive slowdown experienced after the first Chechen war and the default. Now if you would like to demonstrate to me similar inside out knowledge of procurement schedules for the Yeltsin era and argue that Putin's re-armament is a hoax feel free, but I seriously doubt you can present anything of substance.

Dear Feanor,

Check your figures. Most of them are inflated by a factor of two at the least.

> If you mean so called "15 years rearmament plan" announced two years ago, I must tell you it is a pure propaganda cheat! In practice nothing is done as scheduled according to this plan.

- I may agree with Feanor: 'The Plan' is working.

And I tell you this from inside the Russia, from the Kazan Aviation Plant (KAPO im. Gorbunova - you should to know our Tu-160 Blackjacks).

It seems that somebody outside Russia can not adapt himself to the new reality. Like it or not, the schedule is more or less on track with only minor delays

To Feanor: What do you know about the modernization of MiG-31s?

Anonymous my figures come from reliable sources, most of them confirmed by multiple articles from various publications. They are also rather modest compared to the goals set forth by the 15 year plan. If you have reason to believe they're wrong please enlighten me as to why.

Russian there is no plan. What's happening is that as the military budget increases slowly more and more purchases are being made. However it's pretty obvious that it's not planned or well organized for that matter. Many times the deployment dates for weapon systems have been delayed, and the prioritization of some programs over others are beyond human comprehension.

Oh and I forgot to add to the list the Rogatka program for upgrading the T-72B and T-80B (also U and BV) models to the B2 standard which includes a new gun, new engine, new fcs, new era (Relikt), shtora, and a number of other upgrades. Over 200 tanks have already undergone this refit.

Feanor: As Anonymus said: you should divide your "data" by factor of four to five at least! Then you will get a real outcome.
You simply repeat here all propaganda spin which Russian mass-media delivered to you. All your numbers are much exaggregated, many of these new weapon systems aren't completed, integrated and thus battle-ready.
No T-80BV or T-72B advanced modernization called "Rogatka" is pending because of huge cost. In fact T-80BV tanks are now massively withdrawn from service and scarped in steel-mills.
In last two years Russian aviation got on average one and a half new combat plane and one helicopter gunship.
Funny Su-27SM "modernization" is badly outdated and that is why Russian Air Forces get now fifteen years backward "new" planes in deplorable numbers.
The Ka-50/52 family of choppers was sacked by army aviation in 2004 and only dozen or so of them are now in Special Forces service with no new ones ordered.

And so on, and so on...I think Russians should open their eyes on the truth about "Putin's resurgence" and draw right conclusions! Do you believe US/NATO would dare to accept Georgia and Ukraine and build some "missile shields" at Russian borders not taking into account Kremlin's point of view at all if not sure that Russia is militarily weakest as never before since XVII century and will become even weaker in the future???

Guys the schedule is not on track. The figures I presented, while they're a formidable improvement over the previous years, fall dramatically short of the officially adopted army modernization plans. I've managed to find very little on MiG-31 modernization to the M2 standard. Apparently it was tested successfully in 2006 (again that date, it was the beginning of the SM program for the Flanker fleet, the Rogatka program for the tank fleet, the T-90A production start, BMP-3, BMD-4, Mi-28.....). The Sokol factory which initially produced the MiG-31 apparently has a full portfolio of orders to modernize the entire fleet by 2015. However I've not found any production schedules. MDB did mention an unknown number of MiG-31B modernized to the BM standard in 2007.

According to MDB 155 T-72B were modernized to Rogatka standard in 2007 along with 31 T-80's. I never claimed all these systems were fully operational, in fact it's obvious many are not, or were delayed (S-400 and Iskander come to mind). The Ka-50 and Ka-52 are being produced for the Spetznaz just as I said. Again MDB gives 3 Ka-50 and 1 Ka-52 produced in 2007. Whether the SM upgrade is outdated or not you did not dispute the numbers. Nor did you dispute any of the other numbers I provided with anything other then vague generalizations. I'm asking for some sources for your info because they go against what most of mainstream media has reported in terms of arms deliveries. But forget that, you largely ignored almost all of my points. You ignored the Su-24M upgrade, you ignored the BMP-3 and BMD-4 production, you ignored T-90A production. Instead you're raving on about how my figures are wrong. I'll reiterate: sources please.

> What's happening is that as the military budget increases slowly more and more purchases are being made

In reality, "as the military budget increases" the price increases much more...

Gentlemen:

The heart of the problem is that you all are right. The key to understanding this is to realize there is a big difference between weapons in the budget, orders to the factory, payments funded and transferred to the manufacturer, and weapon systems delivered to the Kremlin. For example, the Su-24M (2) update program has 24 aircraft in the budget and 24 “aircraft orders” sent to the factory. However, only monies for 2 aircraft have been transferred to the manufacturer by the Russian Government and thus only 2 aircraft have been rebuilt and delivered at this time to the Far East Russian Air Force. (AW&ST)

I suspect this is a typical problem in procuring weapons systems in Russia today. It’s a process that must improve if the Russian military is to improve. Just my opinion.

Frank Shuler
USA

Anonymous and Condor should prove their assertions. Otherwise,… just empty words not sustained on evidence. May be, …just wishes.

Feanor: I am glad you corrected your overoptimistic informations! The reality is that many things are announced officially in Russian media but later nothing is going according to the plan. Unfortunately at present almost all post-Soviet weapons reach their time limits and they will have to be retired. That is why a huge weapon gap arises in Russia due to lack of gradual replacement programs during last 20 years. Therefore, overall weapons numbers in Russian service must fall dramatically to the deplorable levels. I give you two examples:

- main battle tanks: USSR had 55000 tanks in 1991 but now Russia possesses about 7000 of them. Moreover USSR produced about 2500 tanks annually whereas Russia built only about 200 T-90 tanks since USSR's downfall i.e. approximately 12 tanks a year which means five pro miles of Soviet capabilities!

- combat planes: Soviet union produced 1000 combat aircrafts annually when Russia practically stopped their acquisition at all for its air forces. Only export production takes place now. In lieu of this some "modernizations" were loudly announced. In fact after these "modernizations" like Su-27SM project Russian air forces will get arms 15-20 years old at current Western standards. Besides up to 2015 entire post-Soviet aircraft inventory will be withdrawn due to its age and infinite backwardness. So Russia will stay with 200-300 mostly outdated combat planes (Su-27SM, Su-25SM, Su-34, Tu-160) bought or modernized in present ridiculous numbers.

Here you are all sad reality!

Frank I recall an article in RIA Novosti about 20 upgraded Su-24M2 being delivered to the Russian airforce. Do you have any links to your information?

Here is a list of Russian defence procurement in 2007. It seems to be a reliable list.

http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/2-2007/item1/item2/

Feanor

The information came from Aviation Week & Space Technology and I’ll look back for a link. It was a general overview of fighters and the export market. The Su-24MS was mentioned in a section that was reviewing aviation upgrade projects.

Frank Shuler
USA

Max that's the Moscow Defense Brief (MDB) that I've referred to.

Condor I did not "correct my statements". They were correct from the beginning. I read multiple defense publications (Defense Industry Daily, Arms-TASS, defencetalk.com...) plus I browse various Russian online newspapers on a regular basis. So my numbers come from articles that announced the delivery of the weapons rather then procurement plans.

Now for the Soviet arsenal. Let me dispel some myths. Out of the 55 000 tanks the vast majority were T-54/55, T-62, T-64, and early model T-72's, that were obsolete in 1991. They were kept in reserve at long term storage facilities. They were not active combat tanks. So the actual numbers were much smaller (besides the obvious fact that Russia doesn't need so many tanks). Since the fall of the Soviet Union Russia has produced anywhere between 93 and 310 new tanks (including a battallion of T-80 tanks accepted in the 90's). The variation is due to the fact that we don't know how many additional T-90 baseline variants were produced in the 90's. This number is very small, but with production starting up (two more tank battallions of T-90A due this year) and the Rogatka program (which covered 186 tanks in 2007 alone), it's more then likely that Russia will be able to replace/modernize the bulk of the tank fleet within a 15-20 year time frame. According to the ministry of defense a new tank will be presented in 2009 after completing government testing. So T-90A production may end up curtailed entirely in favor of the new tank (supposedly a T-95, since the Molot project has been dead for years, and the Black Eagle was ready in 2006 but not chosen for the Army).

Now for the SM, SMT, and M2 programs. They are (by western standards) comparable to the F-16 Block 60, and F/A-18 E/F standards. No they are not 5th gen, and nor will they be applied to Russia's entire fighter fleet. With the T-50 prototype set to fly in 2009, and production set for 2013, we can realistically expect serial production of the PAK-FA around the 2015 timeframe (provided all goes well). The numbers modernized are not nearly as ridiculously small as you claim, and most importantly they significantly extend the service life of the aircraft allowing them to remain in service much longer. Finally you forget that aircraft age is not measured in years but in flight hours, and in that regard most of the Russian airforce is rather new. We don't have our fighter jets falling apart in mid air due to old age (an F-15 over the Gulf of Mexico did iirc). Morever Russia currently has large quantities of aircraft in storage due to lack of trained pilots, and from disbanded due to lack of funding units. Finally why you consider the Su-34, Tu-160M (the twin cousin of USAF B-1B which will remain in service for decades to come), the Su-27SM, and the Su-25SM (the American analogue, A-10C is older and is scheduled to remain in service until 2035 iirc) outdated is beyond me.

Feanor: I think you don't know exactly what you are talking about in this area. I give you several examples taken from your last post:

1. In 1991 more than a half of Soviet tank inventory (i.e. 30000 T-64/72/80s) was modern as for contemporary World standards. Moreover all Soviet tanks were usable because of older tanks (T-55/62) were assigned to theaters where potential enemies had ever older equipment like China, Pakistan, Iran and so forth.

2. No T-64A/B or even T-72A tanks were outdated in 1980s, buddy! They were on pair with M1, Leo-2A3, Chieftain and more powerful than M60A1, AMX-30, Leo-1A3. In fact NATO had less modern tank inventory than USSR. Third generation tanks constituted about 20% of overall NATO's tank strength. In contrary almost entire Soviet Army stationed in Europe was reequipped with modern T-64/72/80 tank family. Only NSWP armies stayed behind Soviets in quality of tank arsenal.

3. There wasn't such category like "tanks in long term storage facilities" until CFE-1 treaty under which ten to twenty thousands of Soviet tanks were transferred behind Ural and now are scarped in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. During Soviet times Soviet land forces were divided between three categories of combat ready divisions: A, B, C. All of them had proper amount of tanks and other arms but reduced peacetime manning level. However all their tanks were constantly kept battle-ready by its skeleton crews. They could be used in a matter of days (cat. B div.) or weeks (cat. C div.) after general mobilization.

4. Now Russia has precisely 208 T-90 tanks overall. Besides there is some 2000 T-72s, 3000 T-80s and 2000 T-55/62 tanks including MVD troops. At present many, many hundreds of T-80Bs are sentenced to scrap. This process is ongoing now and I suppose entire T-80 model will be out of service up to 2015.

5 In any circumstances SM, SMT, SM2 modernizations are not comparable with F-16E or F-18E! It is ridiculous. These "modernized" Russian planes stayed with 20 years old "a bit tuned" radars whereas mentioned US fighter possess brand-new AESA radars. No additional comments needed...

6. So called PAK-FA fighter will probably never be built for Russian air arm. This project is so underfunded that it is virtual impossibility to create 5th generation fighter in Russia. Simply compare PAK-FA with JSF project and funds allocated to both!

7. If you think now Russian fighters after "modernization" will gain additional service life (extra 20 years or so) you are in a huge mistake! They weren't kept in good service conditions for many years since 1991 so now they are in a very bad shape. It was also a process of "cannibalization" which means spare parts from one plane were put into several others. That is way number of MiG-31s in service dropped from 350 to 180 aircrafts. So practically entire post-Soviet plane inventory must be withdrawn before 2015-2017 period.

8. The Su-34 isn't some ultra-modern plane these days because this project is 20 years old and badly delayed. It is compatible with Tornado or F-15E from 1980s. Also Su-25SM is an A-10A equivalent but not A-10C! So this "modernization" now gives Russia an attack plane whose analog USAF had twenty five years earlier.

In sum: Let's say in 2015 Russia will have about 200-300 mainly "modernized" combat planes including little number of newly built Su-34s. Also Russian tank arsenal will fall to about 2000-3000 tanks of T-90 and "modernized" T-72B models. Of course those T-72B(M) won't be in full "Rogatka" standard but only a small fraction of them. Remaining T-72B tanks will be modestly upgraded or even won't be upgraded at all.

Here I come to end of my discussion about woeful fall of Russian military and its even more pitiful future perspectives because I think what I proved until now is enough. Believe it or not...

Cheers!

Guys, let's not go too deep into a tank discussion. They are certainyl not strategic weapons.

OK, this "tank section" of discussion is finished at least for me but I could say tanks became very important strategic weapon in 1980s because there was parity in all categories of nuclear weapons between East and West. So tanks were really usable in NATO-WP pure conventional war which hadn't necessary to escalate into nuclear level.

I'm not talking about the 80's, I'm talking about 1991. The Leo2A3 was far more capable then early version T-72, most (if not all) versions of the T-64, and certainly far ahead of older models. The T-72 and T-64 are classified as second generation MBT's. Cat C divisions were in essence storage bases with skeleton crews. It would take weeks, if not months, to bring them up to combat readyness anywhere even comparable to that of Cat A divisions, or most NATO formations. Finally I'm once again talking about 1991, which is after the CFE treaty.

Where do your numbers on currently active tank forces come from? most sources disagree on the exact numbers in service, especially the T-90 where there is little clarity on the number of baseline variants produced in the 90's. You're going to have to provide some fairly authoritative sources to back up this claim.

Not all American aircraft posses AESA. Most are currently in the process of acquiring them.

Your PAK-FA comment is irrelevant. The PAK-FA is not a scratch built project, it has a solid basis of multiple previous 5th gen. projects, including the Berkut, Terminator, MiG. 1.44, and many others. Finally only time will show whether it is built or not and how good it is. Oh and also lets see some figures on the funding for the PAK-FA.

Lets see some evidence of the MiG-31 service drop. Most sources estimate 250-350 MiG-31's currently in active service. Once again you're going to need extremely reliable sources to argue with warfare.ru and globalsecurity.org

The Su-34 is a tactical strike version of the Flanker. If you really want to compare, please do some serious reading first. In terms of strike capabilities it's superior to most Western aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-34.htm

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su34/

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1806310/posts

The A-10A and Su-25 are almost identical in performance characteristics. I've not been able to find stats on the A-10C or Su-25SM but I see no reason to suggest their inferiority. Once again, sources, sources, sources.

Pavel I understand this is very off topic, and I'm sorry for derailing your blog, but I urge to please allow this discussion to continue. I'm sure there is something we can all learn from this discussion, if at least the simple truth that multi-faceted research is required before attempting to make statements or judgement calls on the state of affairs in a nations military. So once again пожалуйста дай нам закончить спор. Действительно очень интересно посмотреть на его источники. Спасибо.

Feanor, Condor:

I can propouse to move the tank discussion to http://www.army-guide.com

There are enough experts there to help You...

To keep topic up to the point:

> First four serial Sineva missiles were supplied to the fleet in 2006, and 12 more missiles were produced in 2007, which allowed re-arming Tula atomic-powered ship.
> If indeed only 16 new missiles have been produced so far, as seems to be the case, then Tula is the only submarine of the Project 667BDRM class that carries operational missiles.

- 'the only submarine that carries OPERATIONAL missileS'???

Wow...

- Pavel, now let's see on the facts:

December 3, 2007: Head of Roskosmos Anatoly Perminov have a face-to-face meeting with President Vladimir Putin, when Mr. Perminov REPORT to the President that 'during the last 3 years, 63 (sixty three) SLBMs were produced'.

In Russian:

"за последние три года ракетно-космическая отрасль изготовила 63 межконтинентальные баллистические ракеты для запуска с подводных лодок"...

Original is here:

http://armstass.su/?page=article&aid=48627&cid=%0A25

By the way, Pavel: 63 new SLBMs, - it's THREE or FOUR subs with OPERATIONAL missiles.

And you may add here also the same amount of old by good R-29Rs that still fly from Delta IIIs (складские запасы - а почему бы и нет?)...

Thanks for the link, it looks like an interesting site. I'll check it out.

Ok to add really quickly, the site features some major errors, in particular the russian defense budget reached iirc 45 billion dollars in 2007, where as that site says 10.5 billion. The numbers of various vehicles in service seem to vague estimates, and many of them seem somewhat off the mark, as for example it says 100 T-90. That's not really possible. T-90 tanks were procured in battallion sized batches of 31 tanks. Finally many types of vehicles are missing, as are many weapon systems, for example BMD-1, BMD-3, and BMD-4, paradroped IFV's, or BTR-90 APC, RPG-29 grenade launchers, and advanced AT systems like the AT-11. In essence, after browsing the Russian section of the site, the numbers seem to be approximations based on very surface estimates of the Russian Army. Interestingly enough it bothers to distinguish between the T-80U and T-80UD, but apparently assumes that there are no T-80BV, or T-80UM tanks in service. It doesn't bother to distinguish variants or modifications for any of the other weapon systems (for example no distinction between T-90 and T-90A which are very different vehicles). The site has little of value to add to this discussion, and is in essence worthless for any serious researcher.

Russian: That's an interesting report. I did miss it, so thank you for the link. I'd be very skeptical about R-29R - it is unlikely it is still being produced - but it does seem possible that Ekaterinburg has the full complement of missiles and Bryansk will get its very quickly. I'll take a closer look at the numbers when I have more time

Interesting indeed, but the question is how that is even possible? Sineva production was at 10-12 in 2007. If we are to assume 63 missiles in 3 years, then 2007 would mark a record low in production. It would mean the previous two years produced 25-26 SLBM's.

Another detail, if the Sineva production only began in 2006, then what was the Krasnoyarsk plant producing between 1999 and 2006? Or did Sineva production start in 1999?

Quote: what was the Krasnoyarsk plant producing between 1999 and 2006?

I bet R-29RM of previous design and life extention of previously produced SLBM. May be the 63 missiles were produced in 7 years.

I share Feanor’s curiosity. None of the published information is definitive and most is contradictive. And, I’m not talking about journalistic opinion but “official Russian government” sources. What is everyone’s best guess as to the current Russian SLBM inventory and how many strategic submarines are capable of patrol today?

Frank Shuler
USA

I'd estimate around 3 operational subs. 1 Typhoon with new Sineva missiles, and maybe 1-2 Delta's with older R-29 variants. But that's just my personal guess.

Now another interesting detail; 2007 was a record year for nuclear weapon production since the breakup of the USSR. It saw 17 new ICBM's produced. If it's a record year, there is absolutely NO WAY 63 SLBM's were produced in 3 years. So the statement is a plain out lie.

> I share Feanor’s curiosity. None of the published information is definitive and most is contradictive. And, I’m not talking about journalistic opinion but “official Russian government” sources.

- For those who still can't believe that 63 SLBMs were produced in 3 years - two additional arguments:

(a) If Head of Roscosmos OFFICIALLY AND PUBLICALLY REPORT to the President that 63 missiles was produced in 3 years, - so it is.

If contrary, we need to suppose that he has LIED to the President... ;-)

(b) Anyone who can count, may count the quantity of R-29Rx SLBMs just on the ONE SHOT (I mean 'in the same time just on the small part of production facility'):

http://img231.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rsm54atstaplesqa1.png

The shot was taken in 2006.

Russian: I don't think there is much doubt about the 63 missiles number. There is a possibility that the press got confused and it was the total number of all missiles, not just SLBMs. I don't think it is very likely, however.

> I don't think there is much doubt about the 63 missiles number. There is a possibility that the press got confused and it was the total number of all missiles, not just SLBMs

- Pavel, I'll prefer to use the 'Occam razor' here.

Article (as well as 'Russian TV') ;-) clearly said about '63 intercontinental missiles for launch from submarines, made during the last 3 years'.

I don't think all the media have made the same error.

Russian I'm inclined to say that he is indeed lying. Once again I reiterate, according to the Russian govt. 2007 was an absolute post-Soviet record of nuclear weapon production. It saw 17 new ICBM's. That means that there is no way that 63 missiles were produced in 3 years. Moreover I'm very skeptical of the ability of Russian industry to produce that many nuclear weapons, when the new Sineva and Topol's are coming in handfuls each year.

"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

The question is always, do we have the facts to understand if “things are equal”? It is this quest for facts that brings all of us to Russianforces.org. (and the healthy self-ego to share personal opinions) There is only one thing worse than “government” when it comes to facts and that is the “media”. Are presidents of Russia lied to? Are presidents of the United States lied to? Can we be so naive to think not? Do we really believe the president’s of Russia and the United States know all and control foreign policy without interference? I suspect, they are only important players in a complicated play. Shakespeare would understand this. (so would Tolstoy)

My guess is that Russia has two strategic submarines capable of deterrence patrol and that today only for three months out of the year is a Russian SSBN on patrol.

Just my opinion.

Frank Shuler
USA

Most likely - Sinevas are not coming off the production line. Sinevas are being made Sinevas by replacing older components in extant SS-N-23s. I would buy that 63 SS-N-23s were converted to Sineva. I don't buy that the Russians actually produced 63 of anything that cost more than a $1,000,000 a copy in the last three years.

The "anonymous" explanation seems quite likely to me. Certainly I would assume all modernized 667BRDM are patrol ready.

> I would buy that 63 SS-N-23s were converted to Sineva. I don't buy that the Russians actually produced 63 of anything that cost more than a $1,000,000 a copy in the last three years.

- Wild fantasies...

Well then you're wrong. Russia has produced 62 T-90A tanks at 2.2 million USD a piece. With 62 more on the way this year.

I really don't know reason why our military constructors can not create naval solid-propellant ICMB comparable with american Trident. Possible they are stupid? Or they just dont't have enough funding for research?
Why these missiles are so big in dimension but has very small payload? Why these shit are so damn inaccurate?
Stop wasting my money(from taxes) and try to create capable weapon!

> My guess is that Russia has two strategic submarines capable of deterrence patrol...

- Frank, please do not hurry to bury the Russian strategic fleet... ;-)

- As always, you have seriously underestimate the ability of Russia to repair it's Strategic Forces; so now let's see on the facts:

(i) 'Subs that shoot'.

- Delta IV (K-114 Tula) - R-29RM / Sineva doublette (December 17, 2007; Dec 25, 2007)
- Delta IV (K-84 Ekaterinburg) - R-29RM Sineva (September 9, 2006)
- Delta IV (K-114 Tula) - R-29RM Sineva (June 30, 2006)

- Delta III (K-211 Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy) - R-29R (August 7, 2007)
- Delta III (K-433 Sv. Georgiy Pobedonosets) - R-29R (September 10, 2006)
- Delta III (K-433 Sv. Georgiy Pobedonosets) - R-29R (September 30, 2004)

So at least 4 subs were performers of the test launches during the last 2 - 4 years (all launches during the oceanic patrols, by the way):

- Delta IV / K-114 Tula
- Delta IV / K-84 Ekaterinburg
- Delta III / K-211 Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy
- Delta III / K-433 Sv. Georgiy Pobedonosets

(ii) Why repair, if not for patrol?

Full list of Project 667BDR (Delta III) subs:

- K-44 Ryazan / Overhaul finished Q407 (NF, active)
* K-496 Borisoglebsk (NF, active or in reserve)
- K-211 Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski / (PF)
* K-223 Podolsk / (PF, active or in reserve)
- K-433 Sv. Georgy Pobedonosets / (PF, active)
* K-506 Zelenograd / (PF, active or in reserve)

Full list of Project 667BDRM (Delta IV) subs:

* K-51 Verkhoturie / Overhaul finished Q499 (NF, active or in reserve)
- K-84 Ekaterinburg / Overhaul finished Q103 (NF, active)
- K-407 Novomoskovsk / Repair finished Q103 (NF, active)
- K-114 Tula / Overhaul finished Q305 (NF, active)
- K-117 Bryansk / Overhaul finished Q407 (NF, active)
- K-18 Karelia / Overhaul started Q406 (NF, overhaul)

(*) Mark the ships we have no information about (possibly 'in bad health' and / or 'near-pier launch platforms').

So since 1999, 7 subs of Delta III / Delta IV Projects went through repair or overhaul.

(iii) Pavel's opinion: I'd be very skeptical about R-29R - it is unlikely it is still being produced - but it does seem possible that Ekaterinburg has the full complement of missiles and Bryansk will get its very quickly.

Comment: and don't forget Tula... ;-)

Resume:

(a) At least 4 Deltas are definitely able to shoot and patrol (2 Delta IIIs and 2 Delta IVs);

(b) At least 2 Deltas are definitely join to the above 4 Deltas soon; so, the full list of subs 'in good health':

- Delta IV / K-114 Tula
- Delta IV / K-84 Ekaterinburg
- Delta IV / K-117 Bryansk (just from overhaul Q407)

- Delta III / K-211 Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy
- Delta III / K-433 Sv. Georgiy Pobedonosets
- Delta III / K-44 Ryazan (just from overhaul Q407)

That gives to us AT LEAST 6 subs capable to shoot and patrol somewhere in 2008; another 2 Delta IVs, will surely join this fleet in the next few years.

- And don't forget coming Project 955.

Russian

The 955 class isn’t here yet and furthered delayed by the Bulava. The Delta IVs are certainly undergoing refit and will all be able to patrol, at least five boats, with the Sineva missile system in the future. I continue to have my doubts on the entire Delta III fleet. Given all that, we must look at the infrastructure necessary to man the fleet and take this hardware and turn it into a military weapon system. That is the real issue. Today, Russia lacks trained, qualified seaman to man its submarine fleet. Submarines that can cruise for a week or so and then spend the next year docked are not on deterrent patrol. A submarine that can test fire a missile isn’t the same as a submarine that can remain under the Arctic ice in constant communications with the Kremlin for 90 days. Perhaps the future of the Russian strategic nuclear submarine program will be an approach similar to China. Invest in the submarines but only sortie the fleet in an emergency; I doubt this. I think the Russian Navy well understands the benefit of such a fleet and will rebuild the necessary supporting infrastructure to make this happen. It starts with sailors.

Frank Shuler
USA

It starts with the sailors.

Which is why the Russian government has spent billions of rubles to overhaul the base at Vilyuchinsk on Kamchatka, despite the fact that the on-their-last-legs Delta IIIs are the only SSBNs out there. It demonstrates a committment to the 955 program and the desire to maintain an SSBN force capable of deterrance patrols imho.

Putin even made it a point to visit Vilyuchinsk last year. To me, that says a lot.

Don't forget that 3 Typhoon class subs seem to be destined for Bulava re-armament.

Russian:

I have been gone for a little while and may have missed something but you are mentioning the Delta III with operational missiles and even provided dates.

Whenever any other missile is extended it is publicized. Do you have articles that talk about the R-29s being still useful?

Rich

Anonymous

I agree President Putin’s visit to Vilyuchinsk was significant but it remains to be seen as to what degree. I just don’t think the 955 class will be procured in numbers to justify basing in the Pacific as well as the Northern Fleet. The logistical support for the Borey-class is too tied to the Russian support bases located in the west. Perhaps as the Delta IVs are refitted they will move to the Pacific and the Yuri Dolgorukiy class will be based at Severomorsk? I believe only a total of four, or possibly five, 955-class submarines will be built and then Russia will move on to construct a new class of strategic submarines. Just my opinion.

Frank Shuler
USA

I think the data declared via START-I are reliable. Some old R-29R are still active via extension-life programs. Off course it is a dying system and in a few years, we will see only 667BRDM and 955 vessels. Also I have my doubts on the return of Akulas refitted with Bulava. I would be great but I doubt of its financial feasibility.

> The Delta IVs are certainly undergoing refit and will all be able to patrol, at least five boats, with the Sineva missile system in the future.

- May agree with you here. But I accept this point of view only as a 'very modest estimation'.

> I continue to have my doubts on the entire Delta III fleet. Given all that, we must look at the infrastructure necessary to man the fleet and take this hardware and turn it into a military weapon system.

- Facts, Frank, - where the FACTS that lead you to this conclusion?

There's a great lack of factological material in your posts.

> That is the real issue. Today, Russia lacks trained, qualified seaman to man its submarine fleet.

- Again: no proofs. For example, - if I'll say that 'USAF lacks trained, qualified pilots', - I can support this statement with a number of links to the reports about B-2, B-1B (twice), F-15 and F-16 (a few) 'A-class incidents' that took place in 2007 - 2008...

But, Frank, - what FACTS do you have, to make such a conclusion about Russian Navy?

Please do not consider me as an 'advocate of Kremlin' or 'advocate of Russian Navy'. I am just an 'advocate of logic' here.

> Submarines that can cruise for a week or so and then spend the next year docked are not on deterrent patrol.

- Again, - where the facts about 'submarines that can cruise for a week or so and then spend the next year docked'?

Considering your CONSTANT underestimation of the real processes in the Russia, I would prefer to multiply your numbers with a factor of few... ;-)

> Perhaps the future of the Russian strategic nuclear submarine program will be an approach similar to China.

- Well, if China will have in the nearest 10 - 15 years, 8 - 9 SSBNs of Project 955 class, - then you're right: 'Russian strategic nuclear submarine program will be similar to Chinese one'... :-)

> I have been gone for a little while and may have missed something but you are mentioning the Delta III with operational missiles and even provided dates. Whenever any other missile is extended it is publicized. Do you have articles that talk about the R-29s being still useful?

- Rich, all the numbers are here:

http://russianforces.org/blog/archive.shtml

Just trace page down for the all 'R-29R' entries.

> I agree President Putin’s visit to Vilyuchinsk was significant but it remains to be seen as to what degree. I just don’t think the 955 class will be procured in numbers to justify basing in the Pacific as well as the Northern Fleet.

- Frank, you really need to re-consider your opinion - just because it is WRONG. A lot of media here in the Russia do report LONG BEFORE the Putin's visit, that 'near Vilyuchinsk, a new base for Project 955 subs will be created'. The total sum for the base construction is 9 billion roubles (368 mln. USDs); more information here (in Russian):

http://region41.ru/content/view/247/

> The logistical support for the Borey-class is too tied to the Russian support bases located in the west.

- I am sorry Frank, but - what do you REALLY know about 'Russian logistics'?

I live here, and I may tell you that we have NO problems with logistics in any part of Russia, - even if we'll say about transportation such an enormous things, like, for example, - core units of the nuclear reactors.

> Perhaps as the Delta IVs are refitted they will move to the Pacific and the Yuri Dolgorukiy class will be based at Severomorsk?

- 'YD' will go to the Pacific fleet after the sea trials. See the above article in Russian.

> I believe only a total of four, or possibly five, 955-class submarines will be built and then Russia will move on to construct a new class of strategic submarines.

- In his recent interview of April 4, 2008, Head Commander of the Russian Navy Vladimir Vysotsky said: 'Since the 4th [Project 955] hull, we will implement to the [Project 955] construction, a new constructive and technical features that will work till 2040'. (In Russian: "... с четвертого корпуса предусматривается закладывать новые технические решения, которые будут работать до 2040 года").

Project 955A or Project 955B?

- 'ONLY A TOTAL OF 4 OR POSSIBLY 5m 955-class subs'... OK.

Now let's listen to the Vladimir Masorin: 'In the next 10 years, we need to build 8 - 9 new SSBNs'. ('Владимир Масорин рассказал, что в ближайшие десять лет на строительство новых кораблей будет выделено не менее одного триллиона рублей при общем объеме финансирования флота в 3,7 триллиона рублей. Также журналисты услышали о планируемых объемах строительства: "Мы должны построить в ближайшие десять лет восемь-девять новых ракетоносцев", - сказал Главком').

Original in Russian:

http://shipbuilding.ru/rus/news/russian/2006/09/05/sub/print.phtml

I ALWAYS told to you, Frank - 8 - 9 Project 955 SSBNs are quite reliable numbers. Just enough for deterrence.

> I think the data declared via START-I are reliable. Some old R-29R are still active via extension-life programs.

- Kolokol, I may agree with your here. There's no reason to 'bury' old but good R-29Rs that still fly perfectly.

So, 96 R-29Rs + 96 R-29RMs could be the real numbers, and should be considered as the 'high margin' of our estimations.

That last article is old news and claims the YD will be handed over to the Navy in 2007. Needless to say it's 2008, it's not finished, and neither are the rockets for it. There is reason to believe the other claims in the article might be of similar nature. While progress is certainly being made, I wouldn't take the official numbers at face value.

Russian

At the end of the day, your facts and figures are merely someone else’s opinion. Some of your quoted sources are governmental and some are media but none are definitive. You take the collective sums of all this opinion and repackage it as your own. I always enjoy your posts and appreciate your passion for your country. My statements are less opinion based on fact than an educated guess. History will have to judge which of us is right.

Frank Shuler
USA

>I live here, and I may tell you that we have NO problems with logistics in any part of Russia, - even if we'll say about transportation such an enormous things, like, for example, - core units of the nuclear reactors.

-Wow...they really do keep you in the dark over there.

There are several instances that the bases do not even have the financial means to continue their electric service. This situation is significant at all military institutions, but even worse at nuclear facilities. A power failure at a base that services nuclear vessels may remove vital components that are necessary to ensure reactor safety. There are several reports of near nuclear accidents due to power failure and the loss of heat at one base was causing the liquid cooling in the nuclear reactors to freeze.

The situation has gotten so bad in certain areas that the town in which the base is locates informally adopts the base and their personnel. It was reported that by the end of 2003, crime, terrorist threats, and other physical and financial problems forced the military to only be able to deploy their new Topol-M ICBMs to the Saratov Oblast region.

Even as the only base that was secure enough for these missiles, they still didn’t even receive enough funding and had to rely on the town of Saratov for support. "City governments have taken over critical supply functions for the Russian nuclear navy.."

>Now let's listen to the Vladimir Masorin: 'In the next 10 years, we need to build 8 - 9 new SSBNs'.

-Russian...in the last 10 years you have only nearly finished one!!! We have not seen any reports of new construction starting and submarines take years to build. But time will only tell who is right...

>That is the real issue. Today, Russia lacks trained, qualified seaman to man its submarine fleet.
But, Frank, - what FACTS do you have, to make such a conclusion about Russian Navy?

-Russian: When was the last time you were trained on submarines? I am a submariner and I can tell you that based on the amount of patrols that your SSBNs make, they men on board those submarines are not properly trained. It is a very complex mechanism to control and we spend a massive amount of time out at sea to train on operating the ships and how to properly maintain the reactors. Without adequate time out at sea, you cannot possibly have properly trained seaman. The "facts" that Frank is lacking is evident on the operational time of the submarine.

This same thing is shown by the statements about your strategic air pilots. They have stated that these "missions" over territories and US ships is necessary due to the 15 year time they took off from flights. The pilots are young and inexperienced and the same can be said about the submariners.

[quote]Russian...in the last 10 years you have only nearly finished one!!! We have not seen any reports of new construction starting and submarines take years to build. But time will only tell who is right...[/quote]

Yes and in the last 10 years the military budget has been tiny. Consider growth of the budget and greatly increased training activity of the Russian military (in particular the air force which has gone from around 15 hours a year to 40-60 hours annually). As for reports of new construction, two more class 955 subs have been laid down. One in 2004 and one in 2006. Please remember we're not in 2003, we're in 2008 and the future looks very different today than back then.

Feanor:

Yes...we all know about the Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir [Monomakh] (Sp?), but after 10 years for one boat people start to get skeptical. My point is that if they want 8-9 in 10 years...plans would need to be in place now...

Well if the Nevsky and Monomakh are finished by 2010 like planned then I'd say that there maybe some validity to the claim of 8-9 subs. If not (and no new subs are laid down) then I'd say no.

Russian:
>In the next 10 years, we need to build 8 - 9 new SSBNs.

As for me, we need 6 CVN too... But there are big differences between "need", "plan" and "can"...

Anonymous:
>Putin even made it a point to visit Vilyuchinsk last year. To me, that says a lot.

Just now I look at the Medvedev vizit to our "monastery"... It's a crazy three-ring circus!!! Nothing more... :-(((
...there was a lot of such vizit in the past dozen years - from Chernomirdin to Ivanov, but the situation remain the same...

Moreover,
>The total sum for the base construction is 9 billion roubles (368 mln. USDs)

it's enough for the "Pot'omkinskaya derevnua" only...

Feanor:

>Don't forget that 3 Typhoon class subs seem to be destined for Bulava re-armament

The only reason to put Bulava on Typhoon subs is Borey failure.
48000 tonn sub with 20 light missiles looks enormous...

> it's enough for the "Pot'omkinskaya derevnua" only...

...or may be enough for a pair of hangars in a 'KingsBay-style'?

http://img88.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kingsbayik8.png

I'm full of optimism here... ;-)

Victor I'm still waiting for a reply from you in regards to your claim about public demonstration of the T-95. Please offer some evidence before simply making claims (links to news articles, cost estimates, etc.).

Feanor:
>Victor I'm still waiting for a reply from you in regards to your claim about public demonstration of the T-95.

From me???
...But what is a T-95 - the 195 project or 640 "black eagle"? Or the 775 project?

But OK (sorry - in russian):
http://soverkon.ru/2008/12/13.php
http://www.newsru.com/russia/24aug2004/tanks.html
and - very old - or new??? news:
http://www.aviaport.ru/news/AviaTechnics/4993.html

And a lot of citations (in the section "price rise and military power") http://www.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/26/7704.html

...there is no "T-95 problem" in Russia - it's a litle part of the some common problem...

Russian:

For the Novorossiysk base (for the few small ships) more then 40 billion roubles assigned...

Object 195 is in common terms often labeled the T-95. The Prject 640 is usually labeled Black Eagle or T-80UM2 (logically derived from the previous creation of Omsk KB the T-80UM1 Bars). Your first article gives a good summary of the T-95's theoretical capabilities (otherwise known as the "advertised capabilities"). In any event I think it was the other victor that made the claim (he was Viktor) and I already talked to him on defensetalk.com where he gave me an article in which the MO was cited saying the tank would be displayed this year. I've seen the article before and it 1) certainly doesn't mean 2 months 2) doesn't mean serial production will begin any time soon 3) doesn't mean the public display won't be delayed.

By the way your article claims that none of these tanks exist. That's not true. Project 640 was essentially completed in 2006 but not accepted for serial production. Rumors on various internet forums speculated that since the T-90 had been chosen over the T-80UM, the Uralvagonzavod lobby had also gotten Project 195 accepted over Project 640.

Finally it says that the T-62 and T-64 will continue to be part of the Russian tank forces. That is not the case. warfare.ru has a list of almost all active duty units and their respective equipment. None are still equipped with this outdated garbage. The bulk are equipped with T-72s, some with T-80's, and several battalions in the 5th Guards Tank Div. have T-90's.

> For the Novorossiysk base (for the few small ships) more then 40 billion roubles assigned...

- Victor, I still believe that Kremlin knows what to do. And I still waiting for two hangars, for two Boreys each, near the Vilyuchinsk...

Let's wait, - time will tell, Google Earth will show... ;-)

> I have been gone for a little while and may have missed something but you are mentioning the Delta III with operational missiles and even provided dates.
> My guess is that Russia has two strategic submarines capable of deterrence patrol and that today only for three months out of the year is a Russian SSBN on patrol.
> Submarines that can cruise for a week or so and then spend the next year docked are not on deterrent patrol.

- Frank, Rich, - good news for you, gentlemen.

- It seems that Delta III K-44 Ryazan go to the deterrence patrol for a 'few months':

http://news.mail.ru/society/1721043/print/

Translation: 'The crew of 'Ryazan' has very important task. Soon, they'll spend a few months far from their families and land'.

(In Russian: 'Впереди у экипажа очень важная задача. В чем она заключается, командир не уточнил. Военная тайна. Сказал только, что проведут несколько месяцев вдали от семьи и земли).

- Well, if SSBN 'spend a few months far from land', - I would say it's deterrence patrol.

If it looks like deterrence patrol, sounds like deterrence patrol and smells like a deterrence patrol, - I'd prefer to call it 'deterrence patrol'... ;-)

It's clear answer to all who can't believe that 'Delta IIIs' still operational.

In fact, you should need no such a proof, if only your logic was 'turned on': logically saying, - why to repair / overhaul the Delta III, if not for deterrence & deterrent patrol?

> At the end of the day, your facts and figures are merely someone else's opinion.
> Some of your quoted sources are governmental and some are media but none are definitive.

- There's no 'definitive facts' in the sphere we discuss here.

And practically all the data we discuss here is 'governmental' (really, don't you think seriously that we need to discuss here the spylogs or may be the rumors of 'yellow press')?

The truth is simple, Frank: data from Russian 'governmental' sources are quite reliable, because Russia is not interested to lie... Even from the practical considerations: just think that any lie may be, sooner or later, revealed by the inspections of American side.

Inspections, Frank. Think about inspections in the frameworks of START; they definitely know more than us... ;-)

> History will have to judge which of us is right.

- I need to agree with you here.

Russian:

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. Remember this post: http://russianforces.org/blog/2007/09/project_667bdr_submarines_are.shtml

We don't know what role of the K-44 is now, but if they are on a deterrent patrol...congratulations.

It seems that “Russian” had presented fairly solid evidence. The issue here is that some westerners are on hurry “to bury” the submarines Russian fleet. This hurry is based on wishes and may be Frank and Rich, whit out bad intentions, simply have echoed these versions based on wishes. The scarce evidence available seems to prove that the wishes will not be satisfied in the near future. The START data seems to be the most reliable open information that’s available. I expect that post-2009 timeline the exchange information mechanism will still work.

Kolokol:

This is where you make incorrect assumptions. I do not wish the sub force was buried. 1) My Master's thesis is written about the future of the SSBN force and why if Russia would downgrade to a dyad, the SSBN force should remain a prominent force. 2) I am an American Submariner. When your boats go out to sea it is exciting for me. Gives us something to do besides tooling around.

All I am saying is one guy in some random article saying that they are doing an important mission for several months doesn't prove anything. They could be doing anything out there.

As for the START data...while it is reliable information is still lists the missiles associated with the now decommissioned Typhoon boats. Numbers don't tell everything.

Kolokol

I too must confess being a fan of the Russian submarine navy. My comments are, of course, only my opinion but I try to infer from published information and governmental sources as to the status and intentions of the Russian submarine force. I have stated many times in these posts what I feel should be the priorities of the Russian Admiralty.

1) Rebuild the Delta IV boats and get them to sea with the Sineve missile system

2) Begin design and initial construction of a successor to the Project 971 Akula class fleet boats

3) Building and deployment of the Yuriy Dolgorukiy Project 955 submarines with the Bulava missile system

I wouldn’t spend any money on the Delta IIIs or the Oscar-class submarines that took away any resources from these projects. Don’t worry. No one in the Kremlin pays any attention to my advice. Pentagon either!

Frank Shuler
USA

To Rich:

1) Self quote: "..Frank and Rich, whitout bad intentions".
I am not blaming you but to those western think tanks (I.e. Heritage and similar) that constantly made prediction based on wishes; predictions that almost every time are WRONG.
May be we can have a lot of fun here quoting those wishes-based predictions and comparing them with the reality.

2)For me STAT data is reliable. I will say the most reliable open source. Any other open source better?
You are rigth about "Typhoon" but this is related to START counting rules. Surely Pavel can explain better than I can.

To Frank:

I mainly agree with your priorities. Let see:

1) Rebuild the Delta IV boats and get them to sea with the Sineva missile system.
Answer: Agree. Work is on track more or less according to plans.

3) Building and deployment of the Yuriy Dolgorukiy Project 955 submarines with the Bulava missile system.
Answer: Agree. Work is on track with delays caused by failed tests on Bulava missile. The Dolgorukiy is starting sea trials and construction of other vessels is advancing. Priority must be given to the increase of Bulava tests in order to make it work.

2) Begin design and initial construction of a successor to the Project 971 Akula class fleet boats.
Answer: Current Shuka-B (“Akula” NATO code) are relatively healthy and with more life-years. In the mean time, the Severodvinsk should be finished. Supposedly, a new and small (around 4000 tn) SSN is currently in the design boards.

- I wouldn’t spend any money on the Delta IIIs or the Oscar-class submarines that took away any resources from these projects.
Answer: I wouldn’t spend any money on the “Delta III” too but they can operate a few more years. Why not use them? I will use the good old Kalmar to the end of their life. The reload of Akula class (“Typhoon” NATO code) with Bulava to replace Kalmars sounds like a back-up plan. I doubt of the feasibility of such a plan. Nevertheless it would be great.
Respect to the “Oscar”class, they are new (Most were launched during the 90s - construction of course started during the 80s). They present some modernization potential that should be exploited, like i.e. reload with Granit with newer electronics and search systems and replace some Granit launchers by a container able to carry and launch 3 Yakhont missiles (it is a feasible work given the respective missions).

Maybe your supposed Patrol of the Ryazan will affect the decreased patrol rates cited here:
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/

> Maybe your supposed Patrol of the Ryazan will affect the decreased patrol rates cited here:

- We've already read about this FAS report here (in Russian):

http://www.vz.ru/society/2008/4/29/163828.print.html

I can only say:

(a) FAS is not the ultimate source, so their 'decreased patrol rate' numbers may be erroneous or at least inaccurate;

(b) Rich, even if we will believe to FAS numbers, - you're not right about 'decreased patrol rates'; look here and feel the trend since 2001:

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/_images/ruspatrol.JPG

- By the way, Rich, - (2001 - 2004) timeframe was the peak of crysis at almost ALL Russian military infrastructures; but, now this peak of crysis is surely behind us.

Again, it's important: (2001 - 2004), - a peak of crysis; there's a lot of arguments to make such a conclusion (except my own life experience, - the last is not the argument for you, as I understand).

(c) In fact, Russia do not need constant SSBN 'deterrence patrols' 'right now', - we are not the US who rely in deterrence capabilities on the fleet. Russian deterrence capability lies on our land-based 'Satans', 'Topols' and 'Topol-Ms'; in fact, comparision of US and Russia is like a comparision of 'elephant' (most powerful land-based animal, most powerful land-based nuclear forces) and 'whale' (most powerful marine animal, most powerful marine nuclear forces).

Of course, - Russia will surely need an 'SSBN deterrence' in the future, when NMD program will progress. So, - think about repair of Delta IIIs, think about overhaul of Delta IVs, and think about Project 955 coming to complete the mission, - and you'll surely FEEL the trend in the next decade. By the way, - FAS data since 2001, only confirm this conclusion, and clearly tell to you: Russian deterrence capability on the sea will constantly grow.

> I am an American Submariner. When your boats go out to sea it is exciting for me. Gives us something to do besides tooling around.

- I hope our Boreys will prevent you and your colleagues from unemployment. (smile)

Russian:

Your ability to see the positive in anything amazes me. To say there are not decreased patrol rates when you look at 10 years ago it funny. To go from 0-5 in the last 7 years is not significant, especially when all 5 of the patrols happened at the same time.

You may not rely on the SSBNs but when they are 36% of your entire arsenal they are pretty important. But then your optimism shines again. How long do you really think the Delta III will last? Delta IV have about 15 years and of course the 955 are in limbo anyway. Unfortunately, the future trend may go either way....