Terms of withdrawal from the Northern Fleet SSBN K-84 "Yekaterinburg" of the project 667-BDRM "Dolphin"

In the next year, in 2022, the Northern Fleet will withdraw from its membership the strategic nuclear submarine missile cruiser K-84 "Yekaterinburg" of Project 667-BDRM "Dolphin". It is reported by TASS with reference to a source in the DIC.

According to the source, the Yekaterinburg SSBN will be sent for recycling. The reason is the age of the submarine that became part of fleet in 1985 year.

Although there is no official confirmation of this information, it can be argued that Yekaterinburg will be scrapped. Although the submarine is still listed in the combat composition of 31 submarine divisions of the Northern Fleet's submarine forces stationed in the Yagelnaya Guba Bay, the submarine's service life expired back in 2017 and was not going to be extended. The talk about writing off SSBNs has been going on for a long time, but there was no free capacity for disposal, and in 2022, apparently, they will appear and the submarine will go for dismantling.

The submarine missile cruiser "Yekaterinburg" project 667-BDRM "Dolphin" was laid down at Sevmash on February 17, 1982, launched on March 17, 1985, and on December 30 of the same year, as they say "under the Christmas tree", the submarine became part of the Northern Fleet ... In 1996-2003, Yekaterinburg underwent a medium repair with modernization at Zvezdochka; in the period from 2011 to 2014, its service life was extended until 2017.

Displacement above water 11740 tons, underwater 18200 tons. The longest length at design waterline is 167,4 meters, the largest hull width is 11,7 meters, the average draft at design waterline is 8,8 meters. Surface speed 14 knots, underwater speed 24 knots. The working depth of immersion is from 320 to 400 meters. The maximum immersion depth is from 550 to 650 meters. Cruising endurance from 80 to 90 days. The crew is 140 people.

Comments

[RMT]

Recently there was news that Shoigu ordered the return of this boat from the fleet.

[Flashpoint]

Quote: RMT

Recently there was news that Shoigu ordered the return of this boat from the fleet.

There was a fire on it in the 11th year. Shoigu was then the head of the Ministry of Emergencies. They wanted to write it off for a long time. Here's what the wiki says:
In December 2020, the ammunition load was removed from the nuclear submarine, in 2022 the nuclear submarine will be withdrawn from the Northern Fleet and decommissioned with subsequent disposal.

Eh, a museum would be made of it ...

[Orange bigg]

It's a pity of course. By the way, the liner was tested from the board of Yekaterinburg.

Ten years ago in Russia, R&D work was completed on the creation of the R-29RMU2.1 Liner three-stage intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

The first test launch of the rocket took place on May 20, 2011 in the Barents Sea from the mine of the Yekaterinburg nuclear submarine. The Liner warhead successfully hit the target at the Kura training ground in Kamchatka.

The new ICBM was officially adopted by the Navy in January 2014.

... The Liner is a representative of the class of liquid-propellant ICBMs, which were developed as part of the program for the rearmament of Project 1980BDRM Dolphin submarine cruisers built in the 667s. The goal of this modernization was to extend the operational life of the submarines until 2030.

The .R-29RMU2.1 was created on the basis of the R-29RMU2 "Sineva", on which work took place from 1998 to 2007. The firing range of this missile exceeds 11,5 thousand km. The ICBM received warheads of the middle class of power, anti-missile defense equipment, a satellite navigation system and a computer complex "Malakhit-3".

"The fundamental difference between this machine (" Sineva ". - RT) from its predecessor (R-29RM. - RT) is that it has changed the size of the steps, installed ten nuclear units for individual guidance, increased the security of the complex from the action of an electromagnetic pulse, a system for overcoming the enemy's missile defense has been installed, ”the RF Ministry of Defense said.

https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/847950-lainer-r-29rmu21-podlodki-667

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

These boats are being decommissioned to be replaced by the Boreas.

Why waste resources on a boat of the last generation with an exhausted resource when new boats are coming to the fleet ?!

In my opinion there is no need.

Moreover, the number of warheads deployed on nuclear submarines fits into 10 Borei, more under the START-3 treaty is impossible, so the rest of Boreias will be carriers of the CD, so that when the United States withdraws from START-3 we have the means to increase the number of nuclear submarines with strategic missiles, we just we will remake Borei with cruise missiles in Boreia with strategic missiles and nuclear warheads.

[sanek45744]

Why say something that you do not know. This ship has a reactor problem.

[bayard]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

These boats are being decommissioned to be replaced by the Boreas.

What treaties can we talk about if the US rejects any treaties in which it is not interested? They have problems with ICBMs and the Ohio's Trident-2 carriers are running out of service, but they are preparing to deploy new medium-range missiles (including promising hypersonic missiles) in Europe and Southeast Asia. They have a huge number of marine carriers of the CD that can carry nuclear warheads ... So why play their games and disarm to their delight?
They are not shy about using their advantages, are they?
Therefore, it would be necessary to extend the service life of the Dolphins as far as possible, and when this is not possible, turn them into floating stationary missile batteries, disperse them in separate bays or at distant piers for a retaliatory strike. The resource of Liner missiles will last for more than a dozen years. This will balance our capabilities for retaliatory / retaliatory strike. And we will compensate for the absence / lack of the CD and MRBM capable of striking the territory of the United States.
Do not waste money and resources during a threatened period. And it is precisely such a period that we are now going through, and no improvement in the situation is foreseen in the foreseeable future.
If the policy of the United States and NATO towards the Russian Federation continues, it is necessary to proactively withdraw from START-3, as it does not meet Russia's security interests.
We must develop our strengths in this confrontation and thereby compensate for our naval weakness, which will not be eliminated in the near future.

... And perhaps it would be worth returning to the practice of nuclear tests. The people and the authorities must be confident in the reliability of our nuclear weapons.
And the ENEMY, too, should not doubt it.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Slow down your horses, exit START-3, start nuclear tests)))

Have pity on Mexico, it cracks on the other side of the planet every time we shove a nuclear charge on New Earth.

From the fact that Russia withdraws from START-3, we will not have more carriers of nuclear weapons in one day, but the USA + NATO use this fact for greater unification and confrontation with us.

Everything that we have already tested, the USSR conducted 714 nuclear tests (one test is often a series of nuclear explosions) and made more than 100 peaceful nuclear explosions, increasing underground gas storage facilities, squeezing methane out of plastic, etc.

The United States has conducted over 1000 nuclear tests and dozens of peaceful nuclear explosions.

We are peaceful people, but our armored train
Standing on the siding!

[bayard]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

From the fact that Russia withdraws from START-3, we will not have more carriers of nuclear weapons in one day,

During this decade, all 10 \ 12 Boreyev / Boreev-M will be commissioned, at the same time, by the end of the decade, it is planned to remove all Dolphins from duty. But the rockets are new for them. 200 Liners were ordered under the MO contract in 2015. Where are they going? Should the carriers write off?
But if their old carriers are transferred to the category of stationary floating missile batteries ... then this, on an equal footing with the setting on duty of the new "Boreys", will give on five SSBNs 80 "extra" intercontinental-range missiles, equivalent in terms of combat capabilities of 80 Yars ICBMs ". Without spending practically no penny on it. Simply by taking these SSBNs to distant piers and connecting to external networks (+ diesel generators, as backup power plants). In this form, the former SSBNs with Liner ICBMs will be able to serve for another 15 - 20 years. The money spent on the production of "Liners" will not be wasted. And the strategic nuclear forces will receive an additional 80 ICBMs for a preemptive or retaliatory counter strike.

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

Have pity on Mexico, it cracks on the other side of the planet every time we shove a nuclear charge on New Earth.

Of course, it is a pity for Mexico, but it is more important to shake up their northern neighbors, recalling the inevitable fate in case of unreasonable actions.
And tests are needed both to monitor the health and combat readiness of existing nuclear warheads, and to test new ammunition produced to replace those written off by age. This (testing) should discipline the opponent. And the educational function here is more important than the purely technical function.

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

The US + NATO is using this fact to more unite and confront us.

We have an agreement only with the United States. Britain and France have SLBMs and are not included in the balance in any way, although this is a NATO bloc and their missiles are aimed at us.
China has announced plans to increase the number of BBs on its ICBMs to 1000. And he will.
But he also does not participate in the agreement.
And if tomorrow, without announcing anything, England and France double their potential on strategic delivery vehicles?
And China will not limit itself to 1000 nuclear warheads and deploy 2000?
And if Japan does acquire nuclear weapons?
Technically, it will not be difficult for them, they design and build delivery vehicles themselves ...
We have no allies in the confrontation with the United States and NATO.
And will the available arsenal be enough for all those "willing" to try it ... the question.
At the same time, the United States has very (!) Old Minuteman-3 ICBMs.
And very (!) Old SSBN "Ohio" ...
They have really serious problems with strategic nuclear forces.
And it is a sin not to take advantage of this.
To achieve general strategic parity.
With a guarantee against all threats.

And restraining yourself in the development of MRBMs is also not worth it, as in their production, and in the places of their deployment.
And don't talk about "money". Last year, 1 TRILLION rubles from the allocated budget WAS NOT SPENDED. And that's not counting the so-called. "Budgetary rule" from the IMF and the World Bank - when we are not allowed to dispose of our own money, honestly earned from the sale of hydrocarbons, taking it into some "reserve funds".
That same trillion, "saved" last year, would be enough to finance the construction of 6 (SIX!) Medium-displacement aircraft carriers (up to 50 tons).
Gazprom alone has set up gas pipelines worth nearly $ 100 billion. ... without any recoil (and no guarantee of future recoil).
The Ministry of Finance has a headache every year - "What to do with the money?" , because the budget of the Russian Federation is terribly surplus.
No, they just won't let him in on retirement.
And on Defense?
Even purely for selfish motives - so as not to be robbed like Deripaska ... not to be hanged like Berezovsky ... not used as Khodorkovsky ... nor did they seize assets abroad, like Kolomoisky (this one is from a neighboring garden, but an example is also indicative ...

And in general, the best way to demonstrate the seriousness of your intentions and capabilities, with a shot from a revolver, is to break a bottle over your opponent's head.
So you will be shown in any American western.
And this is exactly how they understand it.
And they will understand the series of nuclear tests on Novaya Zemlya RIGHT.
And the return of ALL Ukraine "to their native harbor" with an EXAMPLE punishment of all war criminals by the Court of the Military Tribunal, too - they will understand CORRECTLY.
Moreover, all their satellites, including our former territories, will understand THIS.
Everyone understands the power.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

The number of deployed nuclear units is limited by the START-3 treaty, hang out as you like, but no more than 1550 on everything - nuclear submarines, aircraft and mobile complexes. And we will have about 10 already on 1000 Boreas.

As the saying goes, putting eggs in one basket is dangerous.

The modernized "Liners" will serve for another ten years together with the Dolphins, just until all the Boreas are completed.

[bayard]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

The modernized "Liners" will serve for another ten years together with the Dolphins

The fact of the matter is that "Liners" half of their resource will not serve.
And the point is that START-3 is already outdated and is working against us and our security.
England has already announced plans to increase the number of its strategic carriers. France can do the same. China has announced that it intends to have 1000 nuclear weapons on its ICBMs ... In the world, not only we and the United States. That is why Trump was not going to renew this agreement.
And we shouldn't.
There should be enough hospitality for everyone.

[hrych]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

From the fact that Russia withdraws from START-3, we will not have more carriers of nuclear weapons in one day, but the USA + NATO use this fact for greater unification and confrontation with us.

Will become. We have more tactical nuclear weapons than all the nuclear warheads put together. Okay, BB IN, although with our enrichment technologies we can slap them quickly, but strategic aviation can be dramatically increased due to Tu22M3, MiG-31K and even Il-76 on pylons can carry CR. The Combat Unit itself is just as easy to make from a tactical SBCH, there is unification, the BB is just a heat-resistant cone with a charge inside. Spreads a breeding platform around the cities. It is a very complex element, but it is already installed on every ICBM. And of course, a bunch of BBs just zanykana. The contract itself has long been formal and trustworthy. Mutual control mechanisms do not work. If the carriers can be counted, that is, mines and submarines, and try to control the blocks. Let's go back to tactical charges. Here is the X-32 and so with the SBCH, in terms of range it went into the middle, but with a long-range carrier. Onyx went into short-range missiles with a mobile launcher. Iskander, that with the BR, that with the CD with the SBS, went to the MD and SD. Well, an intercontinental torpedo and a Petrel carrying a tactical SBS becomes an MCR. These parasites really have nothing to cover. And the blocks of the Anglo-Franks had not been looking at us before.

[hrych]

Quote: bayard

withdraw from START-3 on an initiative basis

Do you think that START-3 is being carried out? I think no. The control system was there, but the whole thing came out. This agreement is now rather symbolic.

[bayard]

Here I am about that. Since there is no trust between the parties, all clumsy contracts must go to the furnace.

[hrych]

Taking into account our new systems, in principle, the contract is beneficial to us. Putin voluntarily is ready to give the Vanguard for this, but it is understandable that an ICBM is a monoblock, it does not maneuver. But Poseidon and MKR Petrel are not worse than ICBMs, but they do not fall under the contract. Doesn't this treaty allow the deployment of strategic nuclear forces in other countries?

[bayard]

Quote: hrych

But Poseidon and MKR Petrel are no worse than an ICBM,

Here's how to look.
"Poseidon" is formidable for its warhead, but it will have to leave the base (which is guarded by the enemy's submarine submarine) and on its way to the enemy's shores go through several strait zones with their anti-submarine warning system. A torpedo on a collision course or a nuclear depth charge on the way can ruin everything. And their analysts advise to do just that.
With "Petrel" there are even more questions and doubts. The fact that its range is intercontinental and "unlimited" is good. But speed?
Subsonic?
Its flight will detect the enemy's ZGRLS and aim fighter aircraft with the support of an AWACS aircraft. Shooting down such a special problem will not be, moreover, over the ocean or the territory of Canada ... In any case, this is just a very long range CD.
If the speed is still supersonic (as stated during the first presentation), then the difference in the difficulty of interception will be small - the ZGRLS sees far away, and the supersonic missile launcher flies high and cannot be truly "unobtrusive".
So the ICBM is still more reliable. Their missile defense system will not be able to repel a massive raid for a long time to come.
That is precisely why I believe that the Liner missiles must be kept on alert, and the 667BDRM - as their stationary launchers, and in the next decade.
That is, to commission the Borei-M with a full set of BB on missiles, and to transfer the Dolphins to the category of stationary launchers by the end of the decade, until the Liner SLBM is completely depleted.
From the moment when the number of our carriers will exceed 700 (and this will not be soon), the START-3 treaty can be denounced as exhausted and irrelevant in the current international situation.

Quote: hrych

Doesn't this treaty allow the deployment of strategic nuclear forces in other countries?

It does not prohibit such deployment, and the United States denounced the INF Treaty, but in order to deploy its missiles in Cuba and Venezuela (if these countries do not object), you need to have a sufficiently strong oceanic fleet. And with this while the problem.
If the problems are resolved, the power plant will bake like hot cakes, and the embargo on the radio component base will not disrupt the production of all weapons systems, and Russia will still have an ocean fleet ... everything will be possible.

[hrych]

Poseidon (which doomsday) will be on standby unnoticed at depth. It is possible that it will be delivered to the duty point cunningly. As before, the nuclear submarines went under our dry cargo ship or tanker, then God himself ordered. What Belgorod and Khabarovsk bears is rather a tactical option for attacking enemy formations with a more modest charge of the megaton class. The petrel will go out of reach of fighter aircraft and bypass the air defense position areas. In the future, they can deploy ZGRLS, but they are not yet available. They also do not have echeloned air defense. To create this, you have to fork out and strain. Liner and Sineva are still on duty. The rest of the Dolphins underwent a fresh renovation, although one was given to Poseidon.

[bayard]

Quote: hrych

Poseidon (which doomsday) will be on standby unnoticed at depth.

At the depth, in standby mode, there can only be a "Cephalopod" or something like it, without fantastic speed, but capable of stealthily entering the duty area (from the carrier) and lying down / drifting, until the command to detonate.
And "Poseidon" is still a torpedo. Large, long-range, but torpedo, not a submarine, adapted for high speed. Moreover, the megaton class BB could be placed in "long torpedoes" 650 mm. caliber, for attacking groups of ships - the very thing.
In any case, the bearer of these "last day" miracles has yet to leave the base unnoticed, go through all the SOSUS lines unnoticed, avoid detection by PLO aircraft (and the enemy has a LOT of them and they are very advanced ... In general, that is still a task. , with difficulty, but solvable ... But ICBMs are still more reliable.

Quote: hrych

The petrel will go out of reach of fighter aircraft and bypass the air defense position areas.

This is understandable, and most likely - through the Arctic / North Pole, but nobody canceled NORAD. And they have ZGRLS like our "Container". In any case, on the east coast - for sure. The floor of the North Atlantic is visible. No accuracy, but the very fact of the threat will be revealed and target designation for the AWACS aircraft and fighter aircraft will be given.

Quote: hrych

They also do not have echeloned air defense.

Such as we have never had, their air defense is based on fighter aircraft, now they are updating the fleet of fighters - 144 F-15X. And they had loitering AWACS airships (or rather, tethered) along the coast ... As I don’t know now, one of them came up with a scandal, so maybe they refused. We also experimented in Kamchatka. And they also refused - the winds, moreover, very strong and gusty on those echelons.
In any case, they paid close attention to protection from low-flying CDs. And they have enough AWACS planes, so that during the threatened period, air watch will be organized.
You can, of course, slip through, but not for everyone and not everywhere. And then only because it will already be the 2nd - 3rd wave, when much on earth will be destroyed / put out of action.
but again, the ICBM is more reliable.
But if there are different tools, then why not.
Much more interesting is the Zircon on the SSGN under the American shores for the first blinding strike (early warning systems, headquarters, command centers, bases, airfields, key infrastructure). And MiG-31K with "Daggers" in Cuba.

[Osipov9391]

Poseidon is 100 times slower than an ICBM. And given that while the carrier is one and the same outdated project that has been mothballed for about 30 years, given the dominance of the enemy's fleet and aircraft of anti-aircraft defense in the ocean, there is no sense in this.
In the early 2000s, RT-23 railway missile systems were launched on metal. The youngest was the beginning of the 90s of release. And there were no missiles for 10 years at the time of decommissioning.

[bayard]

Quote: Osipov9391

In the early 2000s, RT-23 railway missile systems were launched on metal. The youngest was the beginning of the 90s of release. And there were no missiles for 10 years at the time of decommissioning.

The first "Well done" were assigned a resource of 10 years ... so they wrote off. At the request of the USA.
And they took it to the manufacturer's plant.
And there they raked up in a fire order (dismantled the nozzle blocks) so that they would not try to buy out those of them whose resource still allowed to serve (these were from an underground mobile base near Novomoskovsk, they were produced last and they had a greater resource). And when Putin came to power in 2000, the first thing (after the inauguration) came to this plant ... and the Americans IMMEDIATELY allocated $ 5 billion. for the disposal of these missiles (the money was immediately plundered by Kuchma and Co.) and demanded to remove the nozzle blocks ... cut them and melt them down.
I knew the developers of this rocket and I remember the whole story associated with it. And this story is not over yet.
It was an analogue of the American MX ... but better, because it was mobile, and became the basis for the Typhoon SLBM for the Akula submarine.
... And then Putin offered to write off debts for gas and pay off with gas for still resource RT-23s ... But the Americans gave dollars.
And then they gave it again, and the Sumerians cut almost all Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 ... under the cameras and joyful dances of the American attaches.
so that Russia does not get it.
They didn't even let me disassemble it normally so that equipment and engines could be delivered to Russia ...
This is how the "partners" worked \ work.

[voyaka uh]

"that the Liner missiles must be kept on alert" ///
----
The Liner missiles are kept, because with the Bulava, still not everything is smooth ...

[bayard]

They are not only preserved, they are being built (under the contract of the Ministry of Defense of 2015). But their carriers are old, and although they received timely repairs with modernization, there is a limit to any resource. They will be able to go on duty only until the end of the current decade.
But with the Bulava, everything is fine, and the salvo launches are proof of that.
Another thing is that they are still weaker (in terms of throw weight) of the same "Trident-2".
But "Liner" and "Sineva" in this capacity are analogous.

[voyaka uh]

", and salvo launches confirm this" ///
---
The START was a salvo, everyone saw it.
But one flew to the landfill in the Arkhangelsk region
rocket (still pretty much frightened NATO PROSHNIK ).

[hrych]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

on nuclear submarines, warheads fit on 10 Borei, more under the START-3 treaty is impossible, so the rest of Boreias will be carriers of the CD

What a strange flow ... The treaty limits the total number of deployed nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles. 1550 warheads and 700 delivery vehicles, respectively, plus 100 non-deployed delivery vehicles. To the carrier, i.e. An ICBM and a nuclear submarine missile are equated with a strategic aircraft. According to START-3, a nuclear submarine missile can have 4 warheads. 10 Boreis can carry 160 missiles and 640 blocks. What problems? To remake Boreas in CD carriers is nonsense. all the more since he is already a carrier of the CD through the TA is able to use the calibers of the entire range.

[bayard]

Quote: hrych

To remake Boreas in CD carriers is nonsense. especially since he is already a carrier of CD through TA

A year and a half or two ago, Shoigu announced the start of construction of the Boreyev-K series - missile launchers in launch tubes. A little later, it was decided to expand the Boreev-M series to 10 - 12 units.
But I don't think the idea was abandoned altogether. Such SSGN arsenals are capable of carrying up to 112 CR in the UVP + ten or two to shoot through torpedo tubes. If they are quickly deployed off the east and west coasts of the United States on a rotational basis, it will be "a pistol at the temple of imperialism," as Admiral Gorshkov put it. For such an opportunity, it is necessary to have 6 - 8 such SSGNs. And this is quite within the power of both the budget and the industry. For one "Borey" is worth about 550 million dollars. (despite inflation and devaluation, the price in the enemy currency remains approximately unchanged), and this, in turn, is the cost of one frigate of type 22350 (without the letter "M"). If we compare the price and the achieved effect, the investment is more than justified.

[hrych]

I don’t know why have a CD in the mines of Borey, when Ash does it better. The TLUs were initially taken into account in the design. I looked about Borey-K, there was no confirmation of the MO, most likely a journalistic invention. If there is a link to Shoigu, I would read it. That Borey, that Ash is essentially a cut Pike-B with an inserted missile compartment, Ash has a CD, and Borey has a BR. The first Boreis just used ready-made Pike compartments,

[bayard]

"Ash" is twice as expensive as "Borea".
Carries more than half the amount of CD (50 versus 112).
"Ash" has problems with noise - an open propeller does not contribute to stealth, and "Borey" just has a jet propulsion unit. Therefore, "Boreas is more secretive and has a greater chance of slipping unnoticed through the borders of SOSUS.
Borey has 40 torpedoes / CD in ammunition for the TA, while Ash has only 30.
As a result, for the same money, it is possible to build twice as many Boreyevs as Ash's, and each of them (Boreyevs) will carry 2,5 times more CD (including TA).
Better stealth thanks to a water-jet propulsion unit will also ensure a more successful implementation of the battlefield in the operational deployment zone - in a 500-mile zone from the enemy's shores. But they will be hunted there by all the anti-submarine forces of the US fleets.
With a sober analysis, preference as a SSGN should be given to Borey-K, but ... Ash has a VERY powerful lobby. So powerful that neither the Investigative Committee nor the High Command can influence such a choice.
As a result, very problematic (in technical terms) SSGNs are being built, eating up the lion's share of the Navy's shipbuilding budget. For the price ... of the American Virginia ... but in Russia. And the means (both material and financial, and technical, and design) are no longer enough for the MAPLs that are critically needed for the Fleet.
But you can't beat the butt of the layered Ash lobby with a whip of common sense.
Therefore, the number of MAPLs in the Navy on the fingers of one hand can be counted.

Quote: hrych

I looked about Borey-K, there was no confirmation of the MO, most likely a journalistic invention.

This was articulated by the news announcers of the 1st channel, there were also publications ... but briefly, in passing and without repetitions. But precisely that "Shoigu decided that the next after the 8" Boreyev \ Boreyev-m "will be" Borei-K "as carriers of the CD." Before that, a task was given from VVP for the urgent development of the "Caliber-M" (650 mm) with a range of 4000 - 4500 km. You can't shoot this through a classic TA - new submarines are built with a 533 mm TA. , for surface ships ... perhaps redundant. But for the Borei-K, the Zircons and Caliber-M would be the most optimal ammunition.
But later I was surprised to hear that the 9th and 10th Boreyev-M corps were being laid.
Well, maybe it’s not evening yet and the turn of the SSGN arsenals will still come.

Quote: hrych

The first Boreis just used ready-made Pike compartments,

Durable titanium cases - out of stock.

[Barberry25]

well, you can convert it into anti-ship missiles

[NKT]

Why cheat? The Moscow region is only a year younger, and has been reequipped for other media.

[Bashkirkhan]

667 BDRM is a very good steamer, albeit humpbacked. Brought. But his resource is not infinite either. Moreover, all BDRM at the Northern Fleet have been modernized, all types of scheduled repairs on time and on schedule. However, the prohibitive service life of the 667BDRM, which is expressed in the extreme degree of wear of stressed structures, the absence of spare parts for the main systems and mechanisms, are a sufficiently weighty reason for the decommissioning of these ships.
667 bdrm "Yekaterinburg" for a couple of years in sludge. https://www.oblgazeta.ru/society/defense/116245/
"There are serious technical malfunctions on the Yekaterinburg submarine, which do not allow its further exploitation. This submarine is now practically decommissioned, it has been withdrawn from the fleet, disarmed and is waiting for the moment of its cutting."

[sanek45744]

She has a serious problem with the editor. So they brought it out. I went out to sea on this steamer.

[bayard]

As a stationary floating missile battery, it is still quite capable of serving.
16 ICBMs "Liner" do not fly on the road for a retaliatory strike.
And if any contracts interfere - into the furnace.
Our enemy (and according to the official status of the United States - our enemy) always does just that.
Why keep on missiles fewer BBs than they are designed for?
Why weaken your ability to guaranteed to reach the enemy on his territory?
We have practically declared war, so all resources and reserves must be mobilized to win this war.
The only thing where we are stronger is our strategic nuclear forces, which multiply by zero all their tricks.
So why restrain yourself in your most effective capabilities?
Neither Britain, nor France, nor China take part in START III ... Pakistan, India, China and Israel also do not participate in it.
But they have the means.
The treaty is outdated and works exclusively against the interests of Russia.

[sanek45744]

You have been told the reason why you should write this nonsense. What does the contract have to do with it, the steamer is seriously broken !!!

[Bashkirkhan]

Bayard will not understand you, do not bother yourself. He does not understand what the speech is about, although everything is chewed up.

[bayard]

I'm talking about the entire series of "Dolphins", which they plan to write off by the end of the decade, because the missiles for them are capable of serving for another 20 - 25 years.
And for such a service, a working reactor is not needed; external networks and an auxiliary diesel engine are quite enough.
But I really do not know the list of malfunctions of this particular steamer. If the matter is only in the GEM, it does not matter. If the fire severely damaged the networks, cable ducts and other equipment, then yes - only write-off and disassembly.

[sanek45744]

Ahahah yeah. Everything is clear with you. In my opinion, quite recently, the whole world was shown what happens to a submarine that is old and with a flaw.

[bayard]

I didn’t talk about going to the service. I wrote about the possibility of "shooting from the pier" from the Dolphins, after they were decommissioned from combat services. A submarine, anchored at a distant pier, or anchored in a distant bay, does not need a power plant, a GAK and torpedo vehicles. It is enough to have a working CIUS and to open the shaft covers.
Stationary floating rocket battery.
The Liner missiles have been installed on all Dolphins, but the boats themselves are planned to be decommissioned by the end of this decade.
Where are the missiles?
For the junk?
Or shoot goodbye?
And at the pier they will be able to stand on duty for another 20 years. Each Liner is equivalent to one Yars. 5 667BDRM x 16 "Liners" = 80 ICBMs equivalent to "Yars".
And you don't need to build / produce anything additionally, they already exist.
If tomorrow the United States begins to deploy CD and MRBMs in Europe and Asia, how can we compensate for this?
And what if CDs with nuclear warheads are again placed on their destroyers, cruisers and submarines?
We will definitely not be able to place so much near their shores.
It is possible for the first time (if it is calm) not to load the rockets into the mines, but keep in readiness for this. And in the threatened period, or in case of termination of the contract, promptly equip again.
This is what we are talking about.
And not about the burned out submarine.
In 2015, 200 Liner missiles were ordered for Dolphins. And they (missiles) can serve for 30 - 40 years completely.

[Osipov9391]

I agree with you that if, for example, England tomorrow wants to double its nuclear potential, they will do it. Shipbuilding capacities and technologies (they have already built more than one Astyut) allow. Neither Britain nor France is in any treaties with us. The patrol areas of their strategic nuclear submarines are the Norwegian Sea and the Bay of Biscay. From there, the flight time of missiles to targets on the territory of the European part of Russia is several times less than that of the American ones.

[bayard]

Exactly .
Now START III is working against us. It is stupid to answer linearly - in the slugs of non-nuclear forces. Our capabilities will not allow us to do this. And the asymmetric response could be the withdrawal from START-3 and the build-up of ground-based ICBMs. It will be much cheaper and more efficient. And we have everything for this.
And the use of the 667BDRM hulls as stationary launchers for the Liners, from the same series. The missiles there are completely new, the MO contract for the purchase of 200 Liners was signed in 2015, and the boats will be decommissioned at the end of this decade. them into stationary launchers until the resource of the Liner SLBM is exhausted, we will benefit from this in everything - the Borei will carry out service at sea, and the Dolphins will carry out combat duty at the pier, powered by external networks. And they will serve this way for an additional 15 - 20 years 80 intercontinental ballistic missiles, equivalent to 80 Yars, are a good argument on the scales of national security.

[Tests]

"The talk about decommissioning SSBNs has been going on for a long time, but there was no free capacity for disposal, and in 2022, apparently, they will appear and the submarine will go for dismantling." A source in the defense industry complex would still have told a TASS correspondent when there will be free capacities for the disposal of the Kirov TARK. Soon it will already be 5 years since the deadlines for the manufacture and approval of the project for the disposal of the long-suffering lead "Orlan" have been lost. And what were the Yuzhnye Yagry busy with, that there was no free capacity for the disposal of Yekaterinburg? ... It seems that the TASS source in the defense industry complex possesses information in the same way as the sources of the KGB of the USSR surrounded by Shushkevich, Yeltsin and Kravchuk in November 1991. ..

[Old26]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

Moreover, the number of warheads deployed on nuclear submarines fits into 10 Borei, more under the START-3 treaty is impossible, so the rest of Boreias will be carriers of the CD, so that when the United States withdraws from START-3 we have the means to increase the number of nuclear submarines with strategic missiles, we just we will remake Borei with cruise missiles in Boreia with strategic missiles and nuclear warheads.

Have you read the text of the START-3 Treaty? If yes, then show where there are sublevels associated with the number of warheads on the nuclear submarine. From about 2009-2010, the number of BGs on each SLBM is no more than FOUR. Even considering that the Liner is capable of carrying 10 BB

Further. Only the lazy does not write about the "Boreas" with cruise missiles, but no one has ever argued that there will be such boats. In addition. If you plan to have not one cruise missile in each silo, but at least 4, then there is absolutely no guarantee that the internal diameter of the silo will be the same, into which ballistic missiles will simply "fit" without modernization. Most likely they will be in this mine "dangling like some substance in the hole"

Quote: bayard

Therefore, it would be necessary to extend the service life of the Dolphins as far as possible, and when this is not possible, turn them into floating stationary missile batteries, disperse them in separate bays or at distant piers for a retaliatory strike. The resource of Liner missiles will last for more than a dozen years. This will balance our capabilities for retaliatory / retaliatory strike. And we will compensate for the absence / lack of the CD and MRBM capable of striking the territory of the United States.

That is, you propose to liquidate the operating boats themselves as a class? Put these floating stationary batteries at bay, and then? not build SSBNs? Or write off the bombers? Or maybe we could cut the new Yars-type ICBMs?

[Ryazan87]

The comrade proposes to permanently install completely unprotected and clearly visible "floating batteries" "at distant piers." I would like to see a list of these very piers. And how to equip the infrastructure for such floating batteries in individual bays. How to guard. And what will happen if such a battery is defeated as a result, for example, of sabotage. Let's say by launching a kamikaze drone.

[Old26]

Quote: bayard

And if any contracts interfere - into the furnace.

And who will be worse from this? Them? I don’t think so, but we do. So it is possible to offer "all contracts to the furnace" only if we were the first (including in the economy). And making jingoistic patriotic statements is simple, but stupid.

Quote: bayard

Why keep on missiles fewer BBs than they are designed for? Why weaken your ability to guaranteed to reach the enemy on his territory?

And to the fact that then, even for the Strategic Missile Forces, there will be no warheads
If you leave on R-29RMU2.1 not 4 BBs, as now, but those 10, as you suggest, you get the following
• 5 SSBNs pr. 667BDRM x 16 SLBMs x 10 BB = total 800 warheads
• 4 SSBNs pr. 955 x 16 SLBMs x 6 BB = total 384 BB
In total, on April 28, 2021, there will be 1184 BB only on boats. The remainder is 366 blocks. What to do with the following boats? In the cut? But each Borey is 96 blocks. This means that there will be enough blocks with an interference fit for 4 boats. The number of warheads in the Strategic Missile Forces will be 0,0. Just like on airplanes.

Quote: bayard

We have practically declared war, so all resources and reserves must be mobilized to win this war.

But everyone understands that this amount of BB will be enough. And you are all itching to do. Increase the number of BB times TWENTY, stamp the missiles like a SAUSAGE. Can you hold your horses back?

Quote: bayard

Neither Britain, nor France, nor China take part in START III ... Pakistan, India, China and Israel also do not participate in it.
But they have the means.

It has already been said a million times that the CONTRACT is BILATERAL. However, no. Every time everyone else is remembered ...

Quote: bayard

The treaty is outdated and works exclusively against the interests of Russia.

Uh-huh. Can you argue with numbers? Or will there be another blah blah

Quote: bayard

I'm talking about the entire series of "Dolphins", which they plan to write off by the end of the decade, because the missiles for them are capable of serving for another 20 - 25 years.
And for such a service, a working reactor is not needed; external networks and an auxiliary diesel engine are quite enough.

Are you going to count the missiles and warheads on these stationary floating batteries or not?
"Boreyev" is planned for 10. And at the maximum - 14 (as they say on the same "Storming Depths"). Based on your logic - ALL AT THE MAXIMUM - 800 blocks on floating batteries pr. 667BDRM. Plus 960 for 10 Boreas. As a result - 1760 blocks out of 1550 existing ...