"Liner" for strategic savings

12
Last fall, the media went news on the successful completion of tests of a new strategic missile for submarines R-29RMU2.1 "Liner". However, against the background of another round of disputes about the Bulava rocket, the success of the Liner was to some extent lost. But the P-29RMU2.1 not only successfully passed the tests, but was recommended for adoption.

"Liner" for strategic savings


“Liner”, so to speak, appeared suddenly. For the first time, it was told to the general public after the 20 of the year, the Yekaterinburg submarine, launched the 2011 in May and launched a new missile. “Liner” successfully hit conditional targets at the Kura landfill “Kura”. The second copy of the P-29RMU2.1 departed from the Tula boat and also destroyed the set targets in Kamchatka. After that, representatives of the Ministry of Defense and the GRC them. Makeeva announced the successful completion of the tests, and the rocket itself was recommended for adoption.

A fair question may arise here: two starts and everything, the tests are completed? Why so little? The same "Bulav" was launched several times more. The fact is that the P-30 “Bulava” rocket was created from scratch, and the “Liner” was the modernization of the existing P-29RMU2 “Sineva” rocket, the roots of which, in turn, go to the beginning of the 80’s, -29PM. Such a “family tree” of the P-29RMU2.1 has very pragmatic and even sometimes sad reasons. The original Р-29РМ was launched in the series back in 1986, but ten years later, due to the difficult economic situation in the country and new views on strategic submarines, their production was curtailed. Soon after the production of the P-29РМ was discontinued, work on the creation of a new modification of this rocket had to begin. The reasons are simple: the existing P-39 has almost expired storage time, and the creation of the B-12 P-XNUMHUTTH rocket was very difficult (as a result, it did not produce results - the project was closed in favor of the P-39 Bulava). It was necessary to close the “hole” in strategic armaments with something, because the existing P-30РМ sooner or later would have to be written off due to old age.

By the middle of the 2000-x, tests of the P-29РМ modification called Р-29РМУ 2 "Sineva" began. From the original rocket, it was distinguished by slightly different sizes, updated electronics and, as a result, great opportunities to overcome the enemy’s missile defense. In addition, it was possible to improve the accuracy of warhead guidance. In July 2007, the Sineva was put into service. However, the new rocket no longer fully met the requirements for such arms, and already in 2009-m in the SRC them. Makeeva began work on updating the "Blue". The P-29RMU2.1 “Liner” project meant the creation of a rocket that was as unified as possible with the “Blue” missile, which meets current and future requirements in the areas of payload and missile defense. In fact, the “Liner” is the “Sineva” with a new warhead. Thanks to this approach to modernization, it became possible to test a new rocket with just two launches.

It should be noted that the head part of the “Liner” is not so very different from the “head” of the P-29RMU2. Almost all of their differences are caused by the fact that the “Liner” can carry different load options - from ten warheads of low power to four medium. At the same time, in all configurations of the drop weight there are several blocks of means for overcoming missile defense: EW systems and false targets. According to the representatives of the SRC them. Makeeva, all missiles of the P-29 family are intended for use on the submarines of the 667BDRM Dolphin project. In order for the boat to use the new rocket, no structural changes are required - all retrofits consist in installing the Arbat-U2.1 control complex.

The main goal that was pursued during the creation of the Liner was to provide the project 667BDRM boats with modern weapons. These submarines will remain in service until at least 2020, and for some part of this period they will make up the bulk of submarines carrying strategic missiles. Accordingly, when a sufficient number of nuclear submarines armed with R-30 Bulava missiles are commissioned, the Dolphins can either be updated as much as possible or gradually withdrawn from service fleet. Of course, in order to "plug" a period of several years, the creation of a completely new rocket would be too expensive and complicated. By the way, about the financial side of things. Remaking the Sineva into the Liner will cost the military 40-60 million rubles, depending on the state of the rocket. There are also rumors that the State Rocket Center has considerations regarding the conversion of the old R-29RM into the Liner, but this information does not seem plausible. Firstly, the R-29RM and R-29RMU2 have many serious structural differences, and secondly, the service life of even the newest R-29RM is nearing its end and processing them to the “RMU2.1” state is simply not practical.

As we see, very soon a new missile will arrive in service with the Russian Navy, which, with tolerable financial costs, will be able to ensure the security of the country. So far, she will do it only until 2020, but it is believed that submarines of the 667BDRM project, regularly undergoing repairs and upgrades to various equipment, will be able to remain in service in the mid-twenties, if not further. By that time, the country's military-industrial complex will have to give the fleet a sufficient number of new Borey 955 submarines, and in the future a new missile, superior to both Sinevu and Liner, and Bulava.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

12 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. grizzlir
    +1
    16 February 2012 08: 39
    Yesterday this topic was discussed already. Now I don’t understand the question with the Bulava, why do I need a missile, which in its performance characteristics is inferior to the same Liner. The warheads on both missiles, as follows from open press materials, have the same ability to overcome enemy air defense. The Bulava has less useful load, shorter flight range. Flight range is a very important detail for such missiles, in the conditions of anti-submarine counteraction to get closer to the enemy’s coast is a very difficult task.
    1. Owl
      0
      16 February 2012 09: 08
      A solid-propellant rocket "passes" the active phase faster (acceleration with the engines running), the less likely it is to be hit by the American Standard SAM-3 system deployed on a large number of American surface ships. The disadvantage, as you noted, is the need to bring the combat patrol areas and launch areas closer to the "probable ally" (during the "special period").
      1. grizzlir
        +1
        16 February 2012 09: 31
        I read several materials on this topic. Conclusions:
        Solid propellant rockets are safer in operation, faster put on alert, this is of course a big plus, but a quick acceleration in the active phase of the flight negates the advantages because the solid propellant rocket has both a shorter range and the inability to launch close to the enemy’s coast. It turns out that SSBNs should be located in a certain zone, and this zone is much easier to control with anti-submarine weapons. You can talk a lot about the advantages and disadvantages, I drew attention to this conclusion of experts:
        Meanwhile, other experts, including those related to the Russian strategic nuclear forces, note that the Bulava missile, created on the basis of the Topol at the Solomonov Institute, is not a full-fledged alternative to liquid-propellant missiles.
        Firstly, as already mentioned, due to too small casting weight, and secondly, in its marine version - due to a rather large number of unsuccessful launches.
        Therefore, by the sum of the pros and cons, most likely the Russian leadership will continue to equip nuclear forces with both liquid and solid fuel missiles.
        1. +2
          16 February 2012 10: 01
          Tired of repeating the chewed truth: to compare ICBMs only by throwing weight and range is the deepest idiocy, whose profane roots lead to the jungle of the hardest br ... yes.
          The effectiveness of the RK is a complex property and is characterized by many indicators, one of which is the size of the zone of possible location of a group of targets. Let's evaluate it on the example of "Liner".
          On rockets of the R-29RM family, the third stage and the dilution stage are combined. The tanks at the DU-3 and at the DU dilution stages are common and it is possible to vary the flight range with respect to BB dilution parameters, i.e. with an increase in range, the BB breeding zone decreases, while it is worth noting that it is not necessary to breed 6 BB for, say, three large energy targets and it is not difficult to select suitable targets. Diluting 10 BBs to 5 targets is much more difficult, which again makes it difficult to formulate flight tasks flexibly taking into account the optimal BB consumption for the target (given that the range drops sharply). Also, please note that the possibility and speed of re-targeting missiles is one of the important components of the effectiveness of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
          But this is so, as an illustrative example. In terms of the backward components of efficiency, RK and Liner, and especially Sineva, are also significantly inferior to Bulava.
          1. grizzlir
            -1
            16 February 2012 10: 23
            According to information, the liner will have from 4 to 10 warheads, this is a matter of breeding. And on the issue of re-targeting, do you really think that in the event of a global nuclear conflict after the launch of ICBMs, the question of re-targeting may arise?
            1. +1
              16 February 2012 11: 36
              “According to the information, the Liner will have from 4 to 10 warheads, this is a question of disengagement.” So what did you mean by that? I know if that.
              This is not what I think, but in the Moscow Region, issuing TK. In general, re-targeting characterizes the number of targets for which during time can be started. Obviously, the nomenclature of these goals can be very extensive and vary significantly in threatened period, for example, for amers, this is relevant in relation to PGRK.
      2. 0
        29 June 2018 09: 09
        The path of the active / booster section is independent of fuel. This is management and programming.
  2. Dimitrxnumx
    0
    16 February 2012 09: 41
    I am glad that we created such a rocket as a liner, I agree, why then did we bother with such a mace and throw such significant funds onto it? Maybe it was another cut dough?
    1. Evgen2509
      0
      16 February 2012 14: 01
      About Sineva I heard they say "a rocket without a boat" - Dolphin, and even more so the Squid are becoming obsolete. The only replacement is Northwind, and the Liner will not fit into it))). The manufacturer of missiles also influenced - it is not only in the form of fuel, but in the fact that they are produced by different, "competing" organizations, including ...
    2. 755962
      +2
      16 February 2012 18: 28
      Quote: Dimitr77
      why then so bother with a mace

      ICBM "Bulava" is fully developed and manufactured at the enterprises Russian defense-industrial complex, and is also maximally unified with the Topol-M strategic ground-based missile system.
  3. grizzlir
    +3
    16 February 2012 14: 48
    Quote: Evgen2509
    I heard about Sineva they say "a rocket without a boat

    What year is the information, enough for you to read the old newspapers. R-29RMU2 "Sineva" is currently the main armament of most Russian strategic nuclear submarines. It was decided to extend the operation of DOLPHIN class boats until 2020. Therefore, 2020 is far from the limit for the 667th project.
  4. 0
    29 June 2018 09: 19
    In my opinion, it is necessary to develop solid fuel rocket projects. The advantages are voiced above (safer and less time to prepare for the launch). There are no more advantages, the rest is all available and liquid fuel.
    But in terms of energy efficiency, it is obvious that liquid fuels are ahead (even the whole space on them).
    Therefore, it is also necessary to modernize and develop liquid fuel. And while the BOIL is raw - it is necessary
    make basic bets on LINER, definitely.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"