Pavel

Any published information on the second of the Borey-class SSBNs, the “Alexander Nevsky”? Has construction on this boat slipped due to the delay of Bulava? Any general conclusions as to the success of the “Yuri Dolgoruki” sea trials?

Frank Shuler
USA

No, I haven't seen anything. There was a story today that said that Project 955 submarines will be upgraded after the fourth sub, but that's pretty far away at the moment.

There was a published article by Reuters today that quoted Navy Commander Vladimir Vysotsky at the “Navy Day” festivities in St Petersburg, "Starting with the fourth submarine, we will begin modernizing this class," Vysotsky said. "The modernized Borei submarines will be the core of Russian naval nuclear forces until 2040." As always, I find these comments interesting. It appears there will be a major update to the design after the third boat, tentatively identified as the Vladimir Monomakh. Speculation is that the design of the "Project 955," the Yuri Dolgoruky-class, hasn’t been without challenges. Will the forth submarine of the “Arctic Wind Class” be a new design or just a heavily modified version of the existing Project 955 boats? Will the first three submarines be brought up to boat #4 standards, if we’re talking about updating weapons and combat information systems, or are we talking about a new hull design? If the first three boats won’t be, or can’t be, updated to #4 standards, are they part of the “modernized Borei submarines” that will be the core until 2040?

It will be interesting to follow the progress.

Frank Shuler
USA

> There was a published article by Reuters today that quoted Navy Commander Vladimir Vysotsky at the “Navy Day” festivities in St Petersburg, "Starting with the fourth submarine, we will begin modernizing this class," Vysotsky said.

- That's exactly the news I try to told to you a FEW MONTHS ago. In fact, - it's Vladimir Vysotsky's words of APRIL 4, 2008 (In Russian: главком сообщил, что "с четвертого корпуса предусматривается закладывать новые технические решения, которые будут работать до 2040 года"). And now is JULY 28, 2008... Four-month lag in understanding...

> Will the forth submarine of the “Arctic Wind Class” be a new design or just a heavily modified version of the existing Project 955 boats? Will the first three submarines be brought up to boat #4 standards, if we’re talking about updating weapons and combat information systems, or are we talking about a new hull design?
> Any published information on the second of the Borey-class SSBNs, the “Alexander Nevsky”?

- Some rumors here at VPK says that hull of first sub of 955 class, well-known 'Yuri Dolgoruki', was, in fact, made of details (sections) from non-built subs of 949A and 971 projects, as well as was initially adopted for 90+ tonn R-39UTTH 'Bark' SLBM a.k.a. RSM-52V from D-19UTTH missile complex. Due to large weight of R-39UTTH, 'YD' may carry only 12 SLBMs onboard, - and this is '955 original' sub, with factory number 201.

Also, usage a sections of 949A and 971 projects, do not allow to the first sub of 955 class to use 'hydro-acoustic complex' (sonar) of 'Irtysh' class; in the same time, this sonar will be installed at all other 'Boreys' except the first sub, i.e. YD.

Usage of sections from non-built 949A and 971 projects, lead to the first 'Borey' exterior, shown at well-known Pilot's blog:

http://pilot.strizhi.info/2007/05/04/3373

Note that changing of missile complex from 90-tonn 'Bark' to 36-tonn 'Bulava', does not change the number of launch tubes (12 tubes).

- Beginning with the second sub of 'Borey' class, boat factory number 202, project will have class designation 949A and will has a modified, in comparision with 'YD', hull with better hydrodynamics, - probably with exterior 'hybrid' from the front and rear parts of the following models:

Front part of:
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/6396/955a1gz8.jpg

Rear one of:
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/9520/955a2zd4.jpg

There will be two subs of this 955A class, - factory number 202 'Alexander Nevski' and factory number 203 'Vladimir Monomakh'; the main differences of 955A-class (No. 202 / 203) subs from 955-class (No. 201) are:

(a) 16 'Bulava' SLBMs;
(b) 'Irtysh' sonar complex;
(c) New hull with better hydrodynamics

- Beginning with the fourth sub, as Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky said, further great modifications to the 955 project will be implemented, and, probably, we will see a new designation from the fourth sub, - for example 955B or maybe 955AM.

Current plan is to built 1 (one) 955-class sub (yes, it's 'YD') and 7 (seven) 955A / 955B-class subs in 2010 - 2017 timeframe; so, the total will probably be a fleet of 8 'Boreys', as many official and unofficial Russian sources said.

History of Boreys build-up:

(1) 955-class 'Yuri Dolgoruki', factory No. 201:
- construction started 02.11.1996
- construction finished 2008 (we should see 'YD' at sea trials in August - September, 2008)

(2) 955A-class 'Alexander Nevski', factory No. 202:
- construction started 19.03.2004
- construction finished: not yet

(3) 955A-class 'Vladimir Monomakh', factory No. 203:
- construction started 19.03.2006
- construction finished: not yet

(4) 955B-class sub:
- not layed yet.

Another possibility is that they are giving up on the Bulava. They will get the missiles approved and create just enough for the three boats already in construction and "modernize" the subsequent boats to support a more stable and successful missile.

I wondered in the same direction of Rich. May be the fourth and follow on vessels will have the possibility of exchanging canisters of i.e. Bulava x Sineva. I don’t know how feasible is this with SLBM because of their large dimensions, but the concept had been introduced with the Graney class SSN for exchanging Anti-Ship missiles x Cruise missiles. Furthermore Sineva is taller and slimmer than Bulava and so containers of canisters will have to be at least as tall as Sineva canisters and at leas as large as Bulava ones. May be I am just mad.
Certainly, the Russian explanation of evolutionary improvements on hydrodynamics and sonar equipments looks quite reliable.

Russian

The Moscow Times only quoted his statement on July 28, 2008. However, I’m sure his words have been repeated before in the press. I can assure you there is no lag in my understanding; however, I have also learned not to take things on face value. Rich has made a good point on the future of the Bulava worthy of discussion. Perhaps will know more when the “Dmitry Donskoy” completes her mission.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1010/42/369225.htm

Frank Shuler
USA

Russian, 16 Bulava on the YD:

http://russianforces.org/blog/2007/10/first_project_955_submarine_wi.shtml

Frank, I think much of the Bulava fate will be decided in the "coming soon" launch. Sorry about my "crazy idea" abouth exchange of SLBM but a new fail migth conduct to place Sineva in the follow on 955 class (Another crazy idea ?).

Russian, I'm pretty sure that the first Pr 955 has been stated to carry 16 tubes, the 12 tubes information is obsolete.

Kolokol

I don’t think the concept is crazy at all. I do think retrofitting the Sineva back into the basic Borey-class (“Yuri Dolgoruki”) submarines may be technically impossible. I think the liquid fueled Sineva requires a whole different naval architecture than the solid fueled Bulava. I do think the forth submarine in the Borey series, however, could be redesigned and constructed to support the Sineva if the Bulava continues to disappoint. The Kremlin has options here. That being said, I honestly think the Bulava issues are solvable and the Admiralty will work out the problems. I don’t think the Bulava will share the same fate as the Bark.

Frank Shuler
USA

> The Moscow Times only quoted his statement on July 28, 2008.

- Frank, here the original of April 4, 2008. With the same words about the 'fourth hull':

http://www.newsru.com/russia/04apr2008/glavkom_print.html

> Furthermore Sineva is taller and slimmer than Bulava and so containers of canisters will have to be at least as tall as Sineva canisters and at leas as large as Bulava ones. May be I am just mad.

- Kolokol, you are not mad... (smile)

Some people tell me that, in concurrent struggle inside the Russian VPK, Makeev's design bureau proposed to install into 'YD' launch tubes a special mod of Sineva (my source even told about the name of this 'Sineva' mod as R-29RMU3 'Sineva-2').

The most interesting thing here that, for this liquid-propelled SLBM (I mean R-29RMU3 'Sineva-2'), Makeev's design bureau was ready to propose, first time in the world's naval history, a system of 'dry launch' of liquid-propelled SLBM...

But I almost sure that Russian Navy will not be interesting in this exotic proposal because 'Bulava' will fly soon.

- To Rich: as you can see, getting a SLBM for the 'Borey' is not a problem; if it'll be not 'Bulava', it'll be 'Sineva-2'.

I think we've paid too much attention to this 'SLBM for Borey' problem.

> Russian, 16 Bulava on the YD...

- Yes, there's some controversy in numbers of the launch tubes numbers even in my sources... So I am not sure about 'YD' but following two subs should has 16 SLBMs onboard...

So 12 or 16 tubes on 'YD' - it's still an 'open question' for me... Yes, I understand that in START MOU 'YD' declared with 16 missile tubes - I always remember the post you've cited...

Anyway, we will learn soon.

- Another portion of mix from facts and fantasies about 'Borey' from RIA Novosti:

http://img.rian.ru/images/9962/10/99621037.jpg

Guess where the fact and where the fantasy is... ;-)

Russian

Please explain the “'dry launch' of liquid-propelled SLBM...” statement. Are you suggesting the “Sineva-2” would be deployed in Borey-class submarines with the liquid propellant pre-loaded at the factory? Self-contained? Or, are you saying there would be no need to vent the discharge from a “Sineva-2” missile launch? Either sounds extremely dangerous to me. Do you have more facts?

Frank Shuler
USA

“'dry launch' of liquid-propelled SLBM...” ???. I think the missile will just collapse.

> Please explain the “'dry launch' of liquid-propelled SLBM...” statement.
> I think the missile will just collapse.

- Frank, Kolokol...

Here some details about RMU3 project (in Russian; maybe Pavel will help with exact translation):

http://www.militaryparitet.com/nomen/russia/rocket/balrock/data/ic_nomenrussiarocketbalrock/12/

- As to 'dry launch', - as I understand, it's a launch without preliminary filling of launch tube with marine water, i.e. in a manner of solid-propelled SLBM.

- According to site mentioned above, R-29RMU3 specs sounds like:

"Р-29РМУ3 "Синева-3": проект модернизации. Шахта с АВС ("сухого" старта); с увеличенным диаметром корпуса 1-й и 2-й ступеней, 8 ББ 3Г32 + КСП ПРО или 10 ББ без КСП ПРО, ШПУ с автономным наддувом баков и "сухим" способом старта".

Russian

This makes no sense to me at all. Are you saying the launch tube’s outer door is not open during the launch? The launch tube is not flooded pre-launch to dissipate the oxygen? Don’t solid fueled SLBM submarines flood their tubes before launch? Pavel and Kolokol, can you provide a translation?

Frank Shuler
USA

> Are you saying the launch tube’s outer door is not open during the launch? The launch tube is not flooded pre-launch to dissipate the oxygen? Don’t solid fueled SLBM submarines flood their tubes before launch?

- Frank, I'am saying just what I'm saying. Please ask Makeev's design bureau for a details, because system of 'dry launch' of liquid-propelled SLBM is their idea - not mine.

In addition to my previous message:

> Are you saying the launch tube's outer door is not open during the launch?

- Very original idea - to shoot through launch tube's outer door... (smile)

Frank, you should to know the process of Trident II launch in details, - if not I hope Rich will help us.

As to me, - I recognise the 'Trident II' or 'Bulava' launch under the term 'dry start': this term means that, in the process of preparing to launch, SSBN takes the position near the 'depth of underwater launch' (usually 30 meters of depth).

Then, dedicated gas pumps create in a launch tube with SLBM a pressure of gas, exactly equal to the pressure of off-board marine or oceanic water; after it, launch tube's outer door opens, and SLBM become separated from the ambient water only via the special membrane on the top of launch tube.

Then, a special 'explosive' inside the launch tube, - so called solid-state accumulator of pressure (in Russian - ПАД: пороховой аккумулятор давления), - creates a giant 'bubble' around the SLBM; this 'gas bubble' helps to protect SLBM from the pressure and dynamic influence of external media (marine water), and also gives a 'start impulse' to SLBM to travel in vertical direction. There's enough kinetic energy in this impulse to 'pull out' a solid-propelled SLBM at altitude near 10 m above the water, where ignition of 1st stage engine takes place.

This is 'dry launch', - as I understand it. And this is how R-29RMU3 should fly.

Contrary to the 'dry launch' of solid-fuelled SLBM, classical 'wet launch' of liquid-fuelled SLBM (R-29RMU2 'Sineva', for example), require a preliminary filling of launch tube with off-board oceanic or marine waters, through a special system of water pumps (combined with automatic anti-fire system, in Russian it sounds like 'система орошения ракетной шахты').

When pressure of water inside the launch tube become equal to the pressure of off-board water, launch tube's outer door opens and then liquid-fuelled SLBM perform ignition of 1st stage engine right inside the launch tube.

This is how I understand the 'wet launch'.

Frank, the quote say those that Russian told us: There is a Project called Sineva-3 that involves enlarged diameters for the first and second stages, up to 10 warheads and “dry launch” using “independent pressurisation of tanks”. For me is a doubtful and dangerous proposal. I will take as political fight. A sort of Makeyev counterattack after the kill of Bark in favour of Bulava.

Russian

I have excellent, general, knowledge of the Trident system and your explanation as to a solid-fueled vs. a liquid-fueled missile launch is quite accurate. Thanks for your follow up post which clarified your statements. I fear I became “lost in the Russian translation” and did not understand your meaning.

Frank Shuler
USA

Kolokol

I agree. This sounds like “design bureau” politics; rivals looking for budget money from the Kremlin. The Sineva2 missile itself sounds dangerous. Just my opinion.

Frank Shuler
USA

Six days expectinig new on the test.

Another fail?

> Six days expectinig new on the test.

- We should wait and we will see. On January 23, some changes in specs were declared...

So any updates on when the Bulava launch will happen?

Kolokol above explained the "dry" launch sequence. I wonder though, what are the advantages comparing to the "wet" launch? The "dry" one seems to be more complicated and it requires more equipment. Why would anyone want that?