Russia building naval base in Syria - report - Page 4

rickusn · 01-13-2007, 12:20 PM

I dunno if this was directed at me:

"It would be another monumental blunder to underestimate the Russian ships or even the Navy, just like the aftermath of Iraq!"

But Ive never "underestimated" the Russians at any time or for any reason.

Iraq is a totally dissimilar issue.

It would also be a "monumental blunder" to OVERestimate the Russian Navy or any Navy for that matter.

Because then enormous amounts of resources are wasted.

Many say this occurs anyway. SO? No point(or excuse) in making it worse IMHO.

The facts and experience are well known that when a Navy is underfunded ships dont go to sea and equipment isnt operated.

Maintenance, spare parts and training suffer greatly.

Its well known particularly for submarines that many skills are "perishable" and in short order.

In order for the Russian navy to regain its credibility in all warfare areas appropriate funding must soon become available again.

I counsel neither exreme of estimating but rather taking a realistic, practical view based on facts and experience.

If anyone has either of or both "facts and experience" to share Im all ears.

Especially when it comes to Russia and China. As accurate,reliable and up-to-date info is terribly difficult to come by.

But off-hand comments of a derogatory nature add nothing and in fact are counter-productive.

MrFirst · 01-13-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stan187

I guess its not Mongolia's problem cuz there is nothing of value there for terrorists to blow up

Finally I have a possibility to reply. I wasn't able last two days because of drink problems...
And now I'm feeling an irony! Mongolians are small but proud nation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Countries that sponsor terrorism is not just a U.S. problem. Its the worlds problem and the world must deal with it. Not just the U.S..

Oh, yes. Not just the U.S. but U.S. allies also…

highsea · 01-13-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Really? I would have thought that would be an intended major revenue earner?

I would hope not, since it would represent a huge violation of NPT, MTCR!

Rick- I was referring to the problems with Bulava, specifically the multiple test failures that have cast some doubt on the program's continuation. With the last R-39 retired in 2004, and no replacement ready, the "SSBN as deterrent" is a somewhat hollow threat.

I posted a comment on it some time back, but it didn't generate any response...

Bulava Suspended?

MrFirst · 01-13-2007, 13:17 PM

As for Bulava, there was underwater launch issue. The last test was done to find out the problem. Actually, there are no doubts Bulava will fly soon.

highsea · 01-13-2007, 14:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFirst

As for Bulava, there was underwater launch issue. The last test was done to find out the problem.

All 3 tests have been failures, including the most recent one a couple months ago which resulted in a self destruct 200 seconds into the flight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFirst

Actually, there are no doubts Bulava will fly soon.

Kommersant is saying the missile is "de facto" cancelled, and the entire Borey class is under review, since an SSBN without a missile isn't a hell of a lot of use (The Akulas are currently without a missile). The history of the Borey class is one of starts and stops, due to difficulties with the Bark and Bulava missiles.

Time will tell. Moscow may well decide that it makes more sense to develop a whole new system using more current technologies leveraged from the 855 SSN development. Or they may just go back to the drawing board on the Bulava. Right now, it's up in the air.

Ray · 01-13-2007, 14:33 PM

Highseas,

Time will tell!

RUSKIE · 01-14-2007, 03:58 AM

Hmmmm... Yes.

usplanefan67 · 01-14-2007, 05:17 AM

I thought Russia has always had a naval base in syria?

usplanefan67 · 01-14-2007, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Highseas,

Time will tell!

Do you work for the Russians? If not you should the way you bow over theor equipment.

**Parihaka** · 01-14-2007, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

I would hope not, since it would represent a huge violation of NPT, MTCR!

Oops, wrong abreviation, I'll just retire in quiet embarrassment

Ray · 01-14-2007, 14:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by usplanefan67

Do you work for the Russians? If not you should the way you bow over theor equipment.

I do.

My Russian boss is Ironduke!

Does that help you?

Please come to the point and tell me where I am wrong and not try to win brownie points!

This is a mature forum and not one for inane posts.

I sure would appreciate intelligent comments to indicate where I am wrong. I am here to learn and not exercise my fingers!

Thank you, my good man!

Firral · 01-15-2007, 00:11 AM

About a rocket "Bulava": in my opinion it is simple still very crude project. Its trouble in that that it became political argument, at that time when itself has not been completed yet.
Now it has put in ticklish position of Minister of Defence, and he tries to press on engineers, forcing them to hasten and do mistakes. Haste - one of the main reasons of failures.

Ray · 01-15-2007, 01:06 AM

Quote:

The Bulava (SS-NX-30) is the submarine-launched version of Russia’s most advanced missile, the Topol-M (SS-27) solid fuel ICBM. The SS-NX-30 is a derivative of the SS-27, except for a slight decrease in range due to conversion of the design for submarine launch. The SS-27 has is 21.9 meters long, far too large to fit in a typical submarine. The largest previously deployed Russian SLBM was the R-39 / SS-N-20 STURGEON, which was 16 meters long. Russian sources report that the Bulava SS-N-30 ballistic missile can carry ten warheads to a range of 8,000km. Other sources suggest that the Bulava probably might have a range of 10,000 km, and is reportedly features a 550 kT yield nuclear warhead. Apparently up to six MIRVs can be placed at the cost of offloading warhead shielding and decoys.

The development of a solid-fuel ballistic missile, which was to have replaced the obsolete R-39 (RSM-52) SLBM (NATO reporting name, SS-N-20 Sturgeon), was not completed. The missile's initial three tests were conducted unsuccessfully at a White Sea testing range in the late 1990s. Each time, the missile blew up in mid-air, failing to reach its target. The R-39M SS-N-28 Bark was already in the test stage, when the Navy refused from the missile in favor of the new designer, the Moscow Teplotechnika Institute [Moscow Institute of Heat Technology]. The institute was engaged in ground based Topol missiles and actively lobbied by the Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov.

The creation of D-19UTH missile complex designed for the new nuclear strategic submarines of the Borei-class has been undertaken at GRTs KB named after V. P. Makeev. The D-19UTH launch complex is to replace the D-9 launch complex with RSM-52 ballistic missiles. The new complex will be equipped with a solid-fuel ballistic missile of greater reliability and longer range, capable of being fired from the surface and under-water positions.

The M in the missile index stands for "morskoy," or "naval," because the Bulava is, in effect, a derivative of the land-based missile Topol (SS-27). Yuri Solomonov, head of the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology, the Bulava designer, referring to the size and weight restrictions for sea-launched missiles, said that "here there is no talk of unification because you get two basically different theoretical approaches." Nonetheless, he admits, the designers took as much as they could from the SS-27 because in today's Russia - a far cry from the Soviet era - cost effectiveness also becomes a priority. Human resources made up for scarce financing: people who can design, test, and deploy state-of-the-art missiles appropriately for the little money they receive are certainly worth their weight in gold.

The Moscow Heat Engineering Institute was ordered to develop a new SLBM, i.e. the Bulava. The Yuri Dolgoruky and the world's largest Typhoon-class SSBN, the Dmitry Donskoi, had to be redesigned accordingly. The missile platform, rather than the missile itself, was the main problem. Any Russian, US, French or British SSBN uses special propellant charges, cavitators, when it launches missiles from beneath the waves. These cavitators precede the missile, pushing water aside, thereby enabling the missile to move freely.

It is extremely difficult to identify the appropriate clearance between two physical bodies flying out of the water to ensure that the flames of a powder or another charge do not affect the warhead of another. The point is that several nuclear warheads share one multiple independent re-entry vehicle (MIRV). At the same time, the speeds of these two bodies must be synchronised to the highest degree of accuracy to ensure the clearance is not too great. Moreover, the cavitator must fly aside on the surface and let the missile continue to its target.

The difficulties did not only lie in the technical and technological aspects. The project also failed to receive regular budget allocations at the planned levels. This naturally affected the commissioning of the new strategic systems and the smooth running of the missile-production chain. Nonetheless, the new-generation SLBM was developed in record time, despite the problems besetting the Moscow Heat Engineering Institute and the country's military-industrial sector. Financing began in late 1999.

Moscow initially planned to conduct the first test launch of the Bulava during 2004. Russia successfully conducted surface and underwater pop-up tests of the Bulava missile in 2004. The 2004 tests entailed the launching of a practice round, the goal being to test the launcher that fires the missile from the submarine's silo. The first successful underwater launch was conducted in September 2004 An exact replica of a real Bulava reached a preset altitude after being launched from the submerged world's largest nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), the Dmitry Donskoi.

The first flight test launch was conducted 27 September 2005 from the Dmitry Donskoy nuclear submarine in the Northern Fleet. The missile was launched from the Dmitry Donskoy, a Typhoon class ballistic missile submarine, at 5:22 p.m. Moscow time (1:22 p.m. GMT). "At the estimated elapsed time a dummy warhead hit the designated 'target' at the Kura test site on the Kamchatka Peninsula," a navy spokesman said. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov praised this test of the new Bulava missile system. "We focused financial and administrative resources on designing the fourth-generation Bulava system," Sergei Ivanov said. "The Armed Forces will get these weapons by the end of 2007."

On 21 December 2005 Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said the Bulava ballistic missile had successfully completed its test launch. "The launch has been conducted successfully," Sergei Ivanov said in a report to the Russian President. "The separation of all stages, combat and simulation blocks occurred according to pre-set parameters."

The missile was launched from the submerged Dmitry Donskoy, a Typhoon-class ballistic missile submarine, and successfully hit its dummy target at the Kura test site on the Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia's Far East. "What is important is that the submarine was moving [underwater], it was not stationary," the minister said. It is the first test launch of the Bulava missile from a submerged position and the second overall under the trial program.

Ivanov also said the tests of the Bulava missile would continue in 2006. "We are fairly certain that the [Bulava] missile system, and a new submarine to be equipped with it, will be deployed by our navy in 2008," he said [this seems to represent a slight slip from the "end of 2007" reported a few months earlier]. Russia's Borey-class nuclear submarines will be equipped with Bulava missiles. Two submarines are being built at the Sevmash plant in Severodvinsk in the Arkhangelsk Region, in north European Russia.

Older Typhoon Project 941 submarines are also expected to undergo an upgrade for the new Bulavas.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/3m14.htm

This is a development that has a important strategic connotation.

The Russian military, apparently in dire straits, is still trying to keep up with the arms race in areas that is important in the global paradigm.

Superimposed on the geostrategic continuum it does cause consternations!

highsea · 01-15-2007, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firral

About a rocket "Bulava": in my opinion it is simple still very crude project. Its trouble in that that it became political argument, at that time when itself has not been completed yet.

I think another problem is simply MITT's lack of experience in SLMB's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firral

Now it has put in ticklish position of Minister of Defence, and he tries to press on engineers, forcing them to hasten and do mistakes. Haste - one of the main reasons of failures.

I agree. I think Ivanov was pressuring MITT to show the September 2006 failure was just an error. Normally you will have several months between tests to analyze the data from the previous test. Ivanov was under pressure from the Kremlin, and that's why there was only 1 month between attempts, which resulted in another failure. And then the last one in December.

So Ivanov was under increasing pressure from Putin, which translated to the MITT, which resulted in premature tests. Now the missile has to be reviewed, which means the Yuri Dolgoruki has to be put on hold to await the results of the review.

usplanefan67 · 01-15-2007, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

I do.

My Russian boss is Ironduke!

Does that help you?

Please come to the point and tell me where I am wrong and not try to win brownie points!

This is a mature forum and not one for inane posts.

I sure would appreciate intelligent comments to indicate where I am wrong. I am here to learn and not exercise my fingers!

Thank you, my good man!

No just getting tired of hearing all the American haters in here, when others shouldnt throw stones if they live in glass houses.

01-13-2007, 14:33 PM	#51 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 28,276 Country:	Highseas, Time will tell! __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA

01-14-2007, 03:58 AM	#52 (permalink)
RUSKIE Regular Join Date: 06-21-04 Location: Russia Posts: 94	Hmmmm... Yes. __________________ Dont change fact... Scincerely, Napoleon

01-15-2007, 00:11 AM	#57 (permalink)
Firral *Military Professional* Join Date: 03-11-06 Location: The Kola peninsula, Russia Posts: 336 Country:	About a rocket "Bulava": in my opinion it is simple still very crude project. Its trouble in that that it became political argument, at that time when itself has not been completed yet. Now it has put in ticklish position of Minister of Defence, and he tries to press on engineers, forcing them to hasten and do mistakes. Haste - one of the main reasons of failures. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Analysis: Chechnya	Ironduke	The Western Alliance	4	07-28-2008 19:30 PM
Most needed in US NAVY	Praxus	Naval Forces	345	05-17-2008 20:36 PM
For all those stuck in the Cold War..	rickusn	International Defense Topics	2	02-11-2007 02:05 AM
Rivalry Brews in Russia's Backyard	Gio	The Western Alliance	0	12-04-2004 23:20 PM
Forward naval base to be set up near Gwadar port	visioninthedark	South Asian Defense Topics	2	09-01-2004 15:16 PM

01-13-2007, 12:20 PM	#46 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	I dunno if this was directed at me: "It would be another monumental blunder to underestimate the Russian ships or even the Navy, just like the aftermath of Iraq!" But Ive never "underestimated" the Russians at any time or for any reason. Iraq is a totally dissimilar issue. It would also be a "monumental blunder" to OVERestimate the Russian Navy or any Navy for that matter. Because then enormous amounts of resources are wasted. Many say this occurs anyway. SO? No point(or excuse) in making it worse IMHO. The facts and experience are well known that when a Navy is underfunded ships dont go to sea and equipment isnt operated. Maintenance, spare parts and training suffer greatly. Its well known particularly for submarines that many skills are "perishable" and in short order. In order for the Russian navy to regain its credibility in all warfare areas appropriate funding must soon become available again. I counsel neither exreme of estimating but rather taking a realistic, practical view based on facts and experience. If anyone has either of or both "facts and experience" to share Im all ears. Especially when it comes to Russia and China. As accurate,reliable and up-to-date info is terribly difficult to come by. But off-hand comments of a derogatory nature add nothing and in fact are counter-productive.

01-13-2007, 13:17 PM	#49 (permalink)
MrFirst Contributor Join Date: 01-02-07 Location: Russia Posts: 668	As for Bulava, there was underwater launch issue. The last test was done to find out the problem. Actually, there are no doubts Bulava will fly soon.

01-14-2007, 05:17 AM	#53 (permalink)
usplanefan67 Regular Join Date: 07-18-06 Posts: 48	I thought Russia has always had a naval base in syria?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)