Toronto Escorts

Borei-class submarine Yuri Dolgorukyfiring four Bulava intercontinental missiles

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,447
1,325
113
I am pretty sure that is the first time 4 ICBMs have ever been launched in a salvo from a submarine.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,938
68,424
113
And the peace-loving Russian People works ever harder towards the goal of world harmony.
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,432
16
38
The in-sub footage was definitely a re-enactment. Way too many camera angles involved with cutaways and editing worthy of a Hollywood B-movie. I was waiting for Sean Connery to appear. In 1991, Russia test launched 16 missiles from one sub in a volley (of course they didn't have the 100% hit rate of the current test but the launch was fine). So this is not something new or unprecedented and the U.S. could easily match.

Remember - the US has over a dozen ballistic subs (so called "Trident" class), each carrying 14, 16 and up to 24 missiles with each missile having 8 warheads. Suffice it to say that both countries could effectively wipe each other out handily.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Remember - the US has over a dozen ballistic subs (so called "Trident" class), each carrying 14, 16 and up to 24 missiles with each missile having 8 warheads. Suffice it to say that both countries could effectively wipe each other out handily.
That would not be a big loss. Unfortunately, everybody else perishes also.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com

Promo

Active member
Jan 10, 2009
2,480
0
36
Remember - the US has over a dozen ballistic subs (so called "Trident" class), each carrying 14, 16 and up to 24 missiles with each missile having 8 warheads. Suffice it to say that both countries could effectively wipe each other out handily.
Small note: Trident is the missle. Ohio is the SSBN class and there are currently 18 in service. The Ohio's carry 24 missiles and the SSGN variant (4 of the 18 being converted) have 22 tubes carrying a total of 154 cruise missiles.

The British Vanguard series also carries the Trident II.
 

Promo

Active member
Jan 10, 2009
2,480
0
36
Thanks for the video, I love this stuff.

The Borei class is Russia's latest SSBN, although the 1st in the class has been operational for 5 years. The Bulava missile is also new.

I think this is just a propaganda video, multiple launches have been performed by several navies. One interesting point: I'm not positive, but it appears that the submarine was moving while launching. This is unusual, American and British boomers "hover" while launching. I tried researching this, but found nothing yet. Missiles are "shot" to the surface in an envelope of high pressure steam and the rocket motor ignites when the missile is above the water. If the sub is moving it could affect the steam envelope and trajectory. If the Russians have worked around this, that's impressive. Of-course maybe so have the Americans and just don't talk about it ......

FYI: The American Ohio class can launch all 24 missiles in less than a minute. If the sub ever had to launch for real, the goal would be to fire as rapidly as possible, dive deep and run as the sub just became a high priority target. The launch is easily detected by enemy subs and ships even at range. At maximum speed (25+ knots) it would take ~15 minutes to move far enough away to make detection and attack very difficult again.

https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/ssbn-726.htm
 

Promo

Active member
Jan 10, 2009
2,480
0
36
If you think the launch is kinda creepy, watch the video of the warheads arriving on target!! This is what doomsday might look like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=Z8csh1_8Sh4
Thanks for the video. Creepy is certainly the right word.

Most nukes are air-burst. Can you imagine seeing it streak across the sky ........ then a blinding light ........ then a few seconds later - nothing.

Half my family are x-military. My great uncle was on a WW2 Destroyer and he said two experiences totally creeped him out: 1) looking down into the water and seeing a mine about 50 feet from the ship just below the surface. They were sweeping in the English Channel at the time and 2) the trail of a torpedo running parallel to the ship about 100 feet away. The ship had maneuvered to avoid the torpedo. There was always a chance that the mine could have magnetic sensors and that the torpedo was wake homing ...... death could have been seconds away.
 
Last edited:

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
those are useless against any sort of mass attack. With decoys and now maneuvering warheads they are utterly useless.
I’m not sure it’s a mass attack that’s the main concern, it’s an upstart rouge state (Iran, North Korea) that’s the focus.

With any luck they’ve been optimized to defend Red states.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
Not sure that Yuri I Vladimirovich (Yuri Dolgorukiy) would approve.

By the way Valdemar I of Denmark was his half Great Nephew.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,432
16
38
The future for missile defence might be projectile based vs rocket propelled. Eg: Railgun technology. Originally developed for ship defence - it has offensive applications and ground based ballistic missile defence applications. The challenge for on-ship applications is the energy required. Also - because of the ultra high muzzle velocities (eg: Mach 7) the barrels have to be changed regularly because the sabots literally vaporize a layer of the barrel shot by shot. But the economics make sense - each round is low 6 figures vs 7 figures for a missile. The energy in the round would literally obliterate a missile with no explosive charge required. Apparently the Chinese have beaten the U.S. with a working ship-based rail gun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UKk84wjBw0
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
The future for missile defence might be projectile based vs rocket propelled. Eg: Railgun technology. Originally developed for ship defence - it has offensive applications and ground based ballistic missile defence applications. The challenge for on-ship applications is the energy required. Also - because of the ultra high muzzle velocities (eg: Mach 7) the barrels have to be changed regularly because the sabots literally vaporize a layer of the barrel shot by shot. But the economics make sense - each round is low 6 figures vs 7 figures for a missile. The energy in the round would literally obliterate a missile with no explosive charge required. Apparently the Chinese have beaten the U.S. with a working ship-based rail gun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UKk84wjBw0
I guess the only disadvantage of protectiles is that they cannot change course to follow evasive maneuvers of the missiles.
 

Promo

Active member
Jan 10, 2009
2,480
0
36
those are useless against any sort of mass attack. With decoys and now maneuvering warheads they are utterly useless.
I agree. The FTG-15 and THAAD are for homeland defense and certainly won't be decisive in a shooting war with Russia or China. However the technology is migrating to ship and mobile missiles, where the platform can be used to defend a city, a fleet or troops from low volume attacks.


I’m not sure it’s a mass attack that’s the main concern, it’s an upstart rouge state (Iran, North Korea) that’s the focus.
Neither of those countries have long range ICBM capability, so FTG-15 and THAAD are of little defensive value to the US. The US does have ship and mobile based ABMs, but American ABM systems today are currently <50% effective and ships typically only carry 2-3 ABM missiles.

The Reagan era had it technically right, best defense was space-based. Faster detection, faster response, interception during boost and mid-course phase before decoys or countermeasures were in use.

Although Iran and N. Korea have been developing intermediate range missiles, those are realistically best for tactical defense ... and for cheap threats on neighbouring countries. If either country were serious about using them against the US, they would either sneak them in as cargo (US checks <1% or the cargo shipments entering US ports) or on a small ship or sub and detonate as they enter harbour. Alternatively they could build EMP bombs which is a significant threat to a wide area of technology if denoted high in the atmosphere.

With any luck they’ve been optimized to defend Red states.
lol - good one. Only problem is it's the Blue states are the ones designing and building them and are the home states of the officers that command their launch. The grunts from red states are limited to cleaning the operations rooms. Besides Trump's few assets that actually make money are all in blue states and you know who Trump serves - just Trump!
 
Toronto Escorts