Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
decades in testing and billions in development costs this Bulava missiles has been a nightmare
money could have been better spent on DDGs
money could have been better spent on DDGs
thunderchief
Senior Member
Nuclear deterrence is a top priority for Russia (for obvious reasons
) . Now , they have a family of very good liquid-fueled missiles from Sineva/Layner family , with decent capability to defeat ABM defenses . Only problem is that they are liquid-fueled , and therefore more expensive and difficult to maintain . On the other hand Bulava is solid-fueled (cheaper to maintain) but it had to retain liquid fuel in third stage for terminal maneuvering (it is much easier to change amount of thrust rocket engine produces with liquid fuel then with solid ) . This kind of hybrid concept is difficult to achieve , especially in the state Russian industry is today . We will yet have to see what would happen with this whole project .
From Marine Forum, 11 September:
Will the US soon return to nuclear powered surface combatants besides the CVN's?
No source, but still interesting. Is it to save on tankers? Saving on the need to take a savage tug along with every group of ships would also be of value.
Will the US soon return to nuclear powered surface combatants besides the CVN's?
Last edited:
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
even the new American LHDs and Queen Elizabeth Class carriers are not nuclear powered, the oil price will have to be above $140 per barrel for prolonged period for any vessel above 50,000 tons to go nuclear even then its pushing it
UK did feasibilty study for design work on thier two new carriers and it turns out nuclear power isnt cheaper plus its very maintanence heavy
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Nuclear deterrence is a top priority for Russia (for obvious reasons
On the other hand Bulava is solid-fueled (cheaper to maintain) but it had to retain liquid fuel in third stage for terminal maneuvering (it is much easier to change amount of thrust rocket engine produces with liquid fuel then with solid ) . This kind of hybrid concept is difficult to achieve , especially in the state Russian industry is today . We will yet have to see what would happen with this whole project .
that is also true, nuclear deterrence well where do you start, a SSBN is not a military weapon its a political weapon, but then it is a military weapon of huge significance
SSBN is basically a eqaulizer, a balance and a very good one at that, if you build SSBN the minimum number is 4, one in re-fit, one in dry dock, one on excercise and one on active patrol, theres no two ways about it four is the magic number
do i believe in deterrence, 100% yes, do you need SSBN? eh i think 90% yes because theres no way to guarantee a strike without a submarine, air force cant do it and ICBM cant do it
for any top tier navy SSBN is must, is Russia today a top tier navy? but then Russia has always been big on nuclear submarines
on the balance of probabilitys i would say SSBN for Russia right now is over-reaction, for top tier navy have carrier battle groups of which Russia has one but hardly of any signifcance
a single Typhoon SSBN was as expensive as a CVG, what is fate of all of them, all gone within 30 years much of that time spent in port
That's only the money side of it. How do you value the time a combat vessel spends taken on fuel, how sure can you be of the tanker being there to supply the fuel. USN can be pretty sure of the last item, much surer than any other navy.
As for money - was it in the Suez debacle that Pickford's loaded the tanks in the bottom of the ship, below the NAAFI supplies?
I believe that the UK, the French, the Japanese, the Russians, the Indians, and the PLAN, with the number and quality of logistical/tanker vessels they emplo and the escorts they have, can be pretty sure of those rendezvous too.
But you do pay a price. It depends on the models of conflict you are considering and the importance you attach to conflicts where this is significant. Besides the costs of nuclear power are always changing. Originally these costs were estimated much too low, but it is possible that the Russians are developing a nuclear power plant that is much cheaper than earlier ones.
thunderchief
Senior Member
Basic Russian thinking is that without nuclear deterrence they would end up getting bombed and divided by Western powers (and looking at current events , maybe they are right
) . Therefore , 30 years of SSBN spent in the port means 30 years of peace for them As for a number of nukes and nuclear delivery platforms they need , Russian doctrine was and probably is that they need enough strategic weapons to deter all of the Western powers (US , Britain , France , Israel ... ) and then to left some tactical weapons for Asian powers (China , India , Pakistan ... )