"Some kind of a test structure" is a mast for calibrating sonar based on bearing angle. The nickname is "Fishing Rod" (Udochka).

Here are some more submarines with it.

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/5318/129342972668803.jpg
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/4764/attachment1w.jpg
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/9327/attachmentwb.jpg
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/2593/91195681.jpg
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/7971/14621926.jpg

And I don't really see why the comment about regular patrols is relevant. 2 out of 6 submarines available for patrol is a fairly standard tempo. Add the Pacific Delta IIIs, and you have a standard number of submarines at sea, performing deterrence patrols.

Thanks for the images - it is indeed a calibration mast. As for the patrols, I would think that a major announcement along the lines "we've ben waiting for this for 26 years" implies having more than two submarines that can go to sea.

This is just my supposition, but I think could have meant that they are instituting a system similar to the French or British one: at least one submarine always on patrol (with one in overhaul, one preparing to patrol and one winding down from a completed patrol)

Before, you often had situations where submarines were available, but they often just went out for short training cruises or not at all. Perhaps the new approach is to have a continuous deterrent available, even with small numbers, instead of docking most submarines in port and "surging" them en masse from time to time a la Soviet Navy.

Not so pessimistic, Pavel :) A few months delay may be worth it in a time when Russia isn't being actively threatened (not directly at least), and means that by Christmas, the Fleet would be able to field *five* fully refurbished and modernised Delta IV subs (all except Yekaterinburg)

Five might not sound like many, but loaded with the Liner SLBM, they could already (at least theoretically, at 16x10 each) take care of over 50% of the entire START deployed warhead limit!

Of course this is an upper limit, but don't forget that at least one Borei will be fully operational by then as well, a bunch of Delta III's and of course the RSVN's fearsome (albeit aging) arsenal of Satans.

Don’t think the Russian Navy will be able to keep a constant patrol, one submarine always “effectively deployed”, with only 6 Delta IVs (Project 667BDRM) without having two dedicated crews per boat. This is how the French do it. It’s not clear to me, the Royal Navy today maintains such a deterrence patrol 24/7. Of course, I’m somewhat discounting the Delta IIIs.

Just my opinion.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank, are you implying that they don't have it?

Because the 2-crew system has been in place since late 70's in the Soviet Navy. Today, there is more manpower in the submarine fleet than there are submarines, by a good margin.

artjomh

The only conclusion I can reach is that crew issues keep Russian submarines in port. How better to explain why Russia has 10 strategic nuclear submarines and yet struggles to keep one on a constant deterrence patrol? (as per Admiral Vladimir Vysotskiy, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy)

I suspect Russian nuclear submarines in general suffer from personnel issues in key areas; read: nuclear reactors. While there may be additional manpower in the submarine service today than in recent past, I strongly suspect there are not “two crews” assigned to every boat; one on deployment or pending a deployment and another training to take that submarine back to sea when the first crew returns.

If indeed the Russian Navy has two full trained crews for each strategic nuclear submarine, the material condition of the Russian submarine fleet must be an issue? Do you have any insight or farther thoughts?

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank, Russian submarines go regularly on patrol. The photos of Bryansk in dry dock linked by Pavel above were taken after one such cruise (all submarines are dry-docked for hull inspection after every voyage). Not all of the cruises are full on 3 month long voyages, but that has more to do with doctrine rather than hull availability.

For obvious reasons, exact movement schedules of submarines are highly classified, so the only way for me to "prove" continuous deterrence would be by post-factum maintenance trips to dry dock or congratulatory PR releases by Navy press office, but suffice it to say, the evidence is there.

artjomh

Is the reason that all submarines are dry-docked for hull inspection after every voyage due to the operating environment? Or, due to the material condition of the fleet? With the question asked, it makes sense to me the harsh environment of the Arctic Ocean would certainly effect operational deployments by the Northern Fleet. Would the same be true of the Delta IIIs in the Pacific?

Interesting exchange.

Frank Shuler
USA