Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Russia’s nuclear arsenal is weaker than claimed as it relies on “zombie” submarines that are no longer fit for purpose, according to research from a Russian political scientist.

Five of the 13 Russian nuclear subs officially in active service are “now past their useful lives”, wrote Dr Pavel Luzin in Russian analysis journal Riddle, suggesting that they have been quietly retired.
Click to expand...
But other nuclear researchers disagreed with these conclusions.

Dr Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher on weapons of mass destruction at the UN, agreed that Russia’s submarine fleet “is not in good shape” and “quite a few subs may be out of service”, but said this did not mean that Russia’s nuclear arsenal had been weakened.

Figures for nuclear missiles collected by inspectors were not calculated through the number of subs, but from seeing “the actual number of missiles installed in tubes”, he told i.
Click to expand...
inews.co.uk

Russia's nuclear arsenal inflated by useless 'zombie submarines,' Russian researcher claims

Five of the 13 Russian nuclear subs officially in active service are 'now past their useful lives', claims Dr Pavel Luzin
inews.co.uk inews.co.uk
 
I would only consider the Delta IVs and Dolgorukiys to be usable, so 11 submarines of which 2-3 should be out on long term refurbishment at any one time.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The point is that if the sub is not at sea you know exactly where the missiles are, and SLBMs are not as well protected as silo-based ICBMs.
Click to expand...

I’m aware; I was just pointing out they aren’t harmless even if they don’t put to sea. I doubt they typically are at a manning or alert level where they could fire pierside, but it’s not a dice roll I hope anyone takes.
 
Desertfox said:
I would only consider the Delta IVs and Dolgorukiys to be usable, so 11 submarines of which 2-3 should be out on long term refurbishment at any one time.
Click to expand...

That's assuming they have the funds for such a plan, currently Russia is blowing most of its defence budget in Ukraine.
 
Desertfox said:
I would only consider the Delta IVs and Dolgorukiys to be usable, so 11 submarines of which 2-3 should be out on long term refurbishment at any one time.
Click to expand...
If the Russians are doing a dual-crew model like the US and UK, they can keep 3 of 4 ships out at sea 24/7 for about 90 days at a stretch, and any given ship is only in port for about 30 days. Any long term refits happen about every 20 years or so.
 
Having a quickly reloadable ICBM launch silo is all fine and dandy but in the case of WWIII IMO I'd say that is, well, academic for rather obvious reasons as it's very unlikely one would get the ability to reload an ICBM silo.
 
The sineva and newer variants from the old delta III/IV subs are still very capable. They were doing all sorts of cool experiments in the 80s/90s even tungsten penetrators and attempts at launching small satellites into orbit with special variants of their SLBMs with an added booster stage.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If the Russians are doing a dual-crew model like the US and UK, they can keep 3 of 4 ships out at sea 24/7 for about 90 days at a stretch, and any given ship is only in port for about 30 days. Any long term refits happen about every 20 years or so.
Click to expand...

Historically the Soviets nor Russians had anything like USN SSBN sortie rates.
 
NMaude said:
Having a quickly reloadable ICBM launch silo is all fine and dandy but in the case of WWIII IMO I'd say that is, well, academic for rather obvious reasons as it's very unlikely one would get the ability to reload an ICBM silo.
Click to expand...
All I can think of is that being useful for testing and maybe Prompt Conventional Strike.
 
TMA1 said:
The sineva and newer variants from the old delta III/IV subs are still very capable. They were doing all sorts of cool experiments in the 80s/90s even tungsten penetrators and attempts at launching small satellites into orbit with special variants of their SLBMs with an added booster stage.
Click to expand...
I think everybody did weird stuff back then. :D I read about Sandia Labs firing a penetrator into solid granite (don't recall the speed but it was for the Pershing 2) and it being just fine. (Posted the picture here somewhere.) And then they cancelled the warhead. It was to be a nuke.
 
sferrin said:
I think everybody did weird stuff back then. :D I read about Sandia Labs firing a penetrator into solid granite (don't recall the speed but it was for the Pershing 2) and it being just fine. (Posted the picture here somewhere.) And then they cancelled the warhead. It was to be a nuke.
Click to expand...
1800fps, per wiki. Wow that's a lot slower than I expected!
 
If you want your perpetrator to survive (ie has a nuke on board) you have to hit "slowly", anything hitting at high hypersonics is going to liquefy.
 
This is the penetrator designed for Pershing II, correct? That RV had sufficient control surfaces that it could slow down with pull up maneuvers. I wonder if the penetrator use would involve multiple pull ups or if the initial one would simply be extended to further retard the re-entry.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom