Russia to Build at Least two More Borey-A SSBNs by 2027

According to an industry source, quoted in the Russian media, the 2018-2027 State Armament Program includes construction of two additional Project 955A/Borey-A submarines. This will bring the number of submarines of the Project 955 class to ten by 2028. The source said that five submarines will be based in the Northern Fleet and five - in the Pacific. He also suggested that the construction of the Borey submarines will continue after 2027, since it is unlikely that the Project 667BDRM subs will be able to remain in service that long. (Back in May 2018, it was suggested that Russia may build six additional Project 955A submarines, bringing the total to 14.)

link.

India's First Ballistic Missile Submarine Conducted its First Nuclear Deterrent Patrol

When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced earlier this month that the Indian Navy had completed its first sea-based nuclear deterrent patrol it was more of a statement of intent than a demonstration of a new capability.

The Indian Navy’s new ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) INS Arihant was the boomer that completed the month-long deterrent patrol. Whilst this is not insignificant – it is the first country outside of the five members of the U.N. Security Council to develop this capability – it also shows how far away India is to achieve its goal of joining the other great powers in establishing a credible sea-based deterrent.

Only the U.S., U.K., France and Russia can sustain continuous-at-sea deterrent patrols, which a provides continuous launch capability of a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) by maintaining at least one SSBN on station at any one time that could fire a nuclear missile. A continuous patrol requires a minimum of four SSBNs.

The patrol as a statement will have more effect in diplomatic circles than in military ones. India wants to join the club of countries that can support a sea-based deterrent and eventually achieve a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent. It also means India will have the ability to launch all three air, land and sea-based types of nuclear weapons and a more robust second strike capability.

link.

Russia Will Launch 4th Borei Nuclear Missile Sub in November

The first advanced version of the nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine Project 955A Borei-class (North Wind) – the Knyaz Vladimir (Prince Vladimir) – will be floated out this coming November, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Korolev, said in an interview with the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper.

“In the near future, the Severodvinsk-based Sevmash Shipyard will float out a new nuclear-powered missile underwater cruiser, the Knyaz Vladimir, from the slipway. The event will take place in November,” he said.

Korolev earlier said that the fourth Borei-class boomer was supposed to have been floated out in August.

The Knyaz Vladimir was laid down in 2012 and will become the fourth submarine in the series of eight Borei-class underwater cruisers and the first submarine of the advanced Borei-A Project.

link.

Ohio Replacement SSBN to be Named Columbia Class

The Navy’s new planned class of ballistic missile submarines will be named in honor of the District of Columbia, two Navy officials confirmed to USNI News on Thursday.

According to a notification memo to Congress obtained by USNI News, the first ship in the next planned class of Navy nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBN(X))– also known as the Ohio replacement program — will be named USS Columbia.

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus’ office is not releasing further information until the naming announcement, one Navy official told USNI News.

While the name Columbia for a U.S. ships and aircraft is not new – at least eight U.S. ships, a Space Shuttle and the Apollo 11 command module have all shared the name – it will be the first time the name has been used to commemorate the U.S. capital, the sources told USNI News.

The fleet’s current USS Columbia (SSN-771) – a Los Angeles attack submarine – is named in honor of Columbia, S.C., Columbia, Ill and Columbia, Mo. The submarine is expected to decommission before the first SSBN(X) enters service.

link.

US Navy Nuclear Submarine Plans

Got subs? The Navy sounds increasingly confident it can squeeze an extra submarine into its construction plans. The additional Virginia-class attack sub, to be funded in the 2021 budget, would enter service just as the attack submarine force shrinks to historic lows while Chinese and Russian fleets grow in both numbers and sophistication.

The Navy had planned to cut back production of Virginias, which carry conventional cruise missiles and torpedoes, to make room for the much larger Ohio Replacement Program (ORP) boats, which carry nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. Maintaining the nuclear deterrent for the worst case scenario takes top priority — but attack submarines are in high demand every day. The growing threat of nuclear-armed great powers increases the need for both kinds of boats. It’s a painful tradeoff the Navy would rather not make.

Now new Navy studies suggest the shipyards can keep building two Virginias a year, the current rate, even as they start building the first “boomer” in 2021. As Ohio Replacement production ramps up after 2021, however, keeping up two Virginias a year will become harder.

link.

The Navy will present an updated Ohio Replacement Program cost estimate to the Defense Department later this summer and seek approval to move into detailed design and engineering work, the Program Executive Officer for Submarines said today.

The new ballistic missile submarine program will request a Milestone B decision from the Pentagon’s acquisition chief and the Defense Acquisition Board, and “coincident with that, we’re also producing a new cost estimate,” Rear Adm. Michael Jabaley said at an event co-hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the U.S. Naval Institute. He said the Navy is still working through this component cost position, of the lifecycle cost estimate, and is awaiting final approval of that dollar figure before presenting to the DAB.

A 2014 cost estimate put the program’s average follow-ship cost — ships two through 12, not including the typically most-expensive lead ship – at $5.2 billion, squarely in between the mandatory threshold of $5.6 billion and the target objective of $4.9 billion. Jabaley added that the 2014 cost estimate put the non-recurring costs – engineering work and building facilities to produce the subs – at $17.4 billion. Updated figures will be publicly released after the DAB approves the Milestone B decision, he said.

Jabaley said he views it as his responsibility to not only control costs for ORP but to actively seek ways to reduce cost.

link.

China may Have a new Modified Balllistic Missile Submarine Class (or subclass)

After the recent revelation that China has a new variant of its Shang-class (Type 093) nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN), new images suggest there is at least one Jin-class (Type 094) nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) with similar modifications, called the Type 094A by some Chinese sources.

link.

US Navy Nuclear Submarine Plans

Electric Boat has been selected to build the Ohio Replacement nuclear ballistic missile submarines while  Both Electric Boat and Newport News will continue to build the Virginia class nuclear attack submarine.  Maybe.

All American subs will be upgraded to become acoustically stealthier.

US Nuclear Forces are Risking Obsolesce

I had originally planned to rewrite this piece.  However, time constraints have worked against me and so here it is.

There's plenty of hand wringing over the US upgrading and replacing its nuclear weapons. The talk is the US will start a new arms race. This is under the assumption the US will be causing others to upgrade and replace their current weapons. This is untrue, but not for the reason the critics think. If the situation was static, the US the country doing the upgrades first, then they would be right. Rather the Chinese and the Russians have /already/ started their replacement of nuclear weapons, delivery systems and carriers for the same.

Russia just laid down its *7TH* new nuclear missile submarine. The Chinese just tested a rail mounted (as in railroad) nuclear missile in a railroad car intended to look like any other. China and Russia are working on new nuclear bombers. Russia has developed an unmanned sub/nuclear torpedo with a dirty bomb. The Russians and Chines have developed new cruise and ballistic nuclear missiles. etc. etc. The list goes on.

Its hard to see the supposition the US is causing the nuclear arms race when we have barely even started the replacement of old systems: the B-21 program has just been selected. The Ohio Replacement Sub is just barely starting tech demos. The Long Range Stand Off weapon and Minuteman replacements are just attempting to get into the budget; nevermind, even done anything other than papers on the subject. This is reactionary, not causative: they started /after/ the other two rival nuclear powers have long since started upgrading and developing their new nuclear capabilities.

It could be argued the missile defense installations, ABMs in Alaska and Aegis Ashore in Europe, could be driving the Russians and Chinese to do their upgrades. At first blush, this seems somewhat reasonable. However, the overwhelming capability of the Russian arsenal, even if 75% failed on launch, would still easily overwhelm the missile defenses in place. The only real defense would be against launches well short of a total war: if a nation wanted to fire off a handful of nuclear missiles, then the defense would work. If it fired off over 100, then we're screwed and there's no way, economically, to stop an all out attack by even old nuclear weapons: 250 nuclear weapons going off over targets all over the US would sink the country, no two ways about it. People would survive, even the country might survive, but we're done as far as being able to wage a war or be a threat to well, anyone other than Papua New Guinea. So, claiming US ABM efforts are driving the nuclear weapons race seem to fall flat as that it only eliminates a 'limited nuclear war,' something most think was a fantasy anyways.

The whole premise of nuclear weapons is as a deterrence and if that deterrence is not credible, then the whole point goes away. The point, from the nuclear powers POV, is to prevent any major attacks on the homeland because the consequences are so great. In some sense, ironically, nuclear weapons may be the biggest peacemaker the last century: the cycle of devastating wars in Europe between rival powers was ended and, indeed, prevented just as it was about to go global from doing so.

This begs the question why "experts" are arguing for NOT replacing the old nuclear capabilities. Its not really because we would cause an arms race. That race is already happening, whether or not we are participating. Nuclear weapons have prevented major wars despite, or potentially even because, of their devastating effect if used. There are only two reasons that come to mind. Either someone is morally opposed to the potential devastation caused by those weapons, understandable, if a bit misguided or the advocate lacks an understanding of how the world has changed in the last 25 years. The former will argue for the the dismantling of the nuclear arsenal no matter what. The latter hold to the position the US is in an unassailable position as the overwhelming superpower, a so-called hyperpower. That last is semi correct, but...and there's always a 'but.'

The 'but' is three fold. The world changes and the US is now faced with nations rising, even converging on the US; the US has a rapidly aging arsenal; and technology has marched on.

China is rapidly closing in on becoming the number one economy in the world. Russia is no longer utterly economically devastated by the break up of the Soviet Union and while crippled somewhat by sanctions and oil prices, has elected to invest heavily in its own arsenal with a far better economy than it had during the dark days, from their POV, of the 1990s.

Secondly, entropy wins all wars. Even with maintaining the current US arsenal, many parts of it are, well, virtually ancient. The B-52s, for example, went into production in *1955* and the the newest of them was built in 1962. Yes, our backbone bomber is minimally 53 years old. Even with spare parts, these aircraft will wear out. The Minuteman III despite its upgrades dates to the 1970s. The Ohio class submarines were introduced in 1981 (older than some congress members). All of these will wear out. Their spare parts may not, in some cases, even exist or even be able to be manufactured at all: the Minuteman missiles use a physically gimballed inertial navigation system for example and lets not talk about the guidance systems... Something the rest of the world moved on from 20 years ago. Or more. Again, entropy really does win all wars.

Related to the fact the equipment is so old, technology has marched on. As many technologies easily surpass what was incorporated in the original weapons and allow for others to develop their own, novel capabilities: technology is not strictly American, especially in the world where we have peer and near peer economies can afford to develop their own. It is not inconceivable Russia or China, especially China, may come up with a method to detect our Ohio class submarines while at sea, removing their deterrence. This enters into the unknown unknowns of human creativity and the longer a problem exists - the US nuclear arsenal and its capabilities and limitations - then the more likely a solution will be found fostered by new technological capabilities.

In the end, it makes little sense to NOT replace what the US has for a nuclear arsenal. The 'destabilization' caused by an arms race has already happened: the Chinese and Russians are rapidly developing and deploying their own new weapons. The Russians and Chinese have become very assertive, pushing back against the international order: Russia occupied and changed the borders of another country in Europe. The Chines are laying claim to virtually the entirety of the South China Sea. These are not the acts of friendly nations. The so-called 'Strategic Holiday' has ended: Fukuyama was emphatically wrong. To neglect a tool, weapons capabilities that have kept the US homeland secure for 70 years is worse than short sighted.

US Navy to Release RFP for Ohio Replacement Program

The Navy will soon release the request for proposals (RFP) for the design of the Ohio Replacement Program ballistic missile submarine, after the Defense Department approved the RFP release.

After finalizing a capability development document, specifications and a process to limit requirements changes in late October, the Navy went to the Defense Acquisition Board on Dec. 21 for authorization to proceed with the RFP.

“On Dec 21, the Navy sought Defense Acquisition Executive authorization to proceed with release of the Integrated Product and Process Development Request for Proposal for the Ohio Replacement program,” DoD spokeswoman Maureen Schumann told USNI News on Tuesday.
“At the DAB, [Pentagon acquisition chief Frank] Kendall reviewed the status of technology development, program schedule, the execution of the current contract and the Ohio Replacement acquisition strategy, and approved the release of the Development RFP.”

link.

Russia Lays Keel for 7th Borey Class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine

United Shipbuilding Corporation's Sevmash shipyard laid on 18 December the keel for the nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine Emperor Alexander III : the Russian Navy's fourth modernised Dolgoruky (Borey-A)-class SSBN and the seventh boat in the Project 955/955A Borey class overall.

The newest Borey-A SSBN will deploy to the Pacific Fleet, according to Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk.

Three Dolgoruky (Project 955) submarines are already in service, and three Borey-A boats are in build at Sevmash. The navy plans to complete a total of eight Dolgoruky SSBNs by 2020.

link.

One of Two Submarine Launched Bulava Nuclear Missiles Missed its Targets...Badly

The Russian media quotes a source in the military as saying that the flight of the first of the two Bulava missiles launched from Vladimir Monomakh submarine on November 14, 2015 did not hit its targets at the Kura test site. The source said that the warheads did reach "the Kamchatka region", but not the designated targets. This suggests that the miss was fairly large.

link.

Vladimir Monomakh, a Borey class Nuclear Ballistic Submarine, Test Fires two sub Launched Ballistic Missiles

On November 14, 2015 the Vladimir Monomakh submarine of the Project 955 Borey class performed a successful launch of two Bulava missiles. The submarine was deployed in the White Sea for the launch. All missiles warheads are said to successfully reached their targets at the Kura test site in Kamchatka.

This may have been the second attempt to carry out a salvo launch from Vladimir Monomakh. Preparations for a test were completed in September, but the submarine returned to the port without launching its missiles. Today's launch was announced earlier this week.

link.

British Procuring 4 new Successor Class Ballistic Missile Submarines

The British government has decided to replace the Royal Navy’s four Vanguard-class ballistic nuclear missile submarines (SSBN) with new boats on a one-for-one basis.

After years of indecision, caused largely by global economic crash-induced fiscal austerity, ministers have effectively acknowledged that reducing the SSBN force to three submarines would signal the end of a half century of continuous U.K. sea-based deterrence.

Prime minister David Cameron is expected to seek parliamentary approval next year to start building the four Vanguard replacement or “Successor” submarines, with the first of the 16,000-ton boats due to enter service in 2028.

Although the opposition Labour Party’s new hard left leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is a vociferous opponent of nuclear weapons, the ruling Conservatives enjoy a 12-strong majority in the House of Commons and a ‘yes’ vote is almost guaranteed.

Both Cameron and his defense secretary, Michael Fallon, have now spoken publicly about the decision to retain four SSBNs, with the latter setting out the government’s position most explicitly at an industry briefing last week.

“Cold War certainties have been replaced by an unpredictable new nuclear age defined by weapons proliferation, more nuclear states, and rogue nations wanting nuclear weapons and the technology to develop them,” Fallon said.

He pointed out that an “expansionist” and “revanchist” Russia was commissioning a new class of eight SSBNs, and that North Korea was conducting its own nuclear and ballistic missile tests.

link.

Industry Told to Keep Costs on Royal Navy's Successor Class SSBN Under Control

Britain’s nuclear submarine industry has been warned by Defence Secretary Michael Fallon not to repeat the delays and cost overruns of the Astute hunter-killer program when it builds the Royal Navy’s new Trident missile submarines.

“Let’s be in no doubt that our new conventional [Astute nuclear submarine] timetable may have slipped a little but our new ballistic missile submarines cannot be late. There cannot be any threat to the build times, overrunning costs or any other excuses,” Fallon said during a speech Wednesday at an industry briefing to lawmakers and others on the Successor nuclear deterrent program.

The Conservative government is committed to building four of the new 16,000-ton Successor nuclear missile boats and is expected to seek final parliamentary approval for the program in the next few months.

link.

Ohio Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine Replacement Program Nearing Final Step Before RFP

The Navy will set the technical baseline for the Ohio Replacement Program ballistic missile submarine next week and lay out a process to keep design changes and cost increases in the Navy’s next nuclear ballistic missile submarine to a minimum.

George Drakeley, the executive director of the Program Executive Office for Submarines, said Thursday at the 2015 Naval Submarine League annual symposium that the program is moving forward in preparation for a design contract to be awarded about a year from now.

Next week the program office will meet with Navy leadership to set the technical baseline for the ship, in an an acquisition approval step called Gate 4.

“We kind of thought that we were past the issues of needing a Gate 4, but [Navy acquisition chief Sean] Stackley wants to have one because he wants to set the tech baseline,” Drakeley said.

“He’s very adamant about controlling cost. He’s a big supporter of the submarine community, he understands the good we do, but he also wants to continue controlling cost, reducing cost, and that’s an emphasis of his. So we’ll be setting the tech baseline with Gate 4, which means the [capability development document] and the specs and developing a process for change – because he feels change in the process is a big cost-driver and he’s going to minimize that to the greatest extent possible.”

Once the baseline is set, the program will meet with the Defense Acquisition Board to get approval to release a request for proposals (RFP) soon, with a contract expected to be awarded next fall.

link.

Is Russian Nuclear Submarine Construction on Track? or not?

Russia's USC said that submarine production and delivery work is continuing on schedule

Construction of new nuclear-powered attack submarines appears to be running behind schedule, however, despite USC claims to the contrary

Russia's United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) said that there has been no decision to postpone the keel-laying of the seventh Project 955/955A Dolgoruky (Borey/Borey-A)-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), and that other submarine production and delivery work is on track.

"All lay-downs and our deliveries are going according to schedule," said USC president Alexei Rakhmanov, according to Russian news agency reports on 15 October.

Submarine builder Sevmash announced in June that it would lay down the seventh Dolgoruky hull in December 2015.

link.

The Antineutrino Detection may Have Profound Implications for the US Navy

The historic agreement between Iran and six world powers to curb the former’s nuclear development, concluded over the summer and expected to be adopted this month, relies heavily on verification. The foreign powers are keen to make sure that Tehran doesn’t acquire enough plutonium or uranium to build a nuclear weapon, and Tehran wants to demonstrate good behavior in order to get sanctions relief. That raises questions about the imperfect verification methods used by the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), the organization charged with the task under the Iranian nuclear deal, and the International Monitoring System (IMS), a global network that detects nuclear explosions worldwide. Are they reliable enough? Some would argue no.

There may be, though, a new option for verification on the not-too-distant horizon. Antineutrino detection is an existing technology that, if political and diplomatic hurdles are overcome, could be put in place before the 10-year ban on Iranian enrichment R&D is lifted. And fully developed over the long-term, it holds great promise for monitoring similar deals in the future, and for reinforcing nuclear non-proliferation worldwide. Difficult to evade, antineutrino detection technology could allow the international community to reliably monitor a country’s nuclear activities in real-time, potentially without setting foot in the country. Similar in cost and technological scale to the space-borne reconnaissance methods governments use for detection today, antineutrino detection could not only help identify undeclared nuclear reactors, but could monitor nuclear facilities and detonations throughout the Middle East and beyond. More research and development could make this technology a viable nonproliferation verification option.

link.

While I am not worried about the chance of a carrier battle group being spotting since stealth is NOT what it does nor is it wise to do for it, but rather for the ballistic missile and attack subs.  The sensitivity of this technology may make it possible to track the subs while submerged.  It depends on the shielding potential of water for the antineutrinos.  I suspect it won't be any better than an underground facility and if so, oh boy...that's a sucker punch.  Its a down right game changer.  Even if underground and subs are safe, mobile nuclear weapons would be perfectly detectable.  Putin's nukes on a train are beyond useless.

Why do Chinese Nuclear Subs Suck?

Over the past two decades, the People’s Republic of China has made great advances in its military capabilities. However, it still lags woefully behind in developing nuclear-powered submarines. The problem for the Chinese is that they lack the necessary quieting and propulsion technologies to build anything remotely comparable to an American or Russian nuclear submarine.

Even the newest Chinese Jin-class ballistic nuclear missile submarines and improved Shang-class nuclear attack submarines are louder than 1970s-era Soviet-built Victor III-class attack submarine or the Delta III-class boomer, according to the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Intelligence.

In fact, even China’s forthcoming Type 95 will be louder than the Soviet Union’s Project 971 Shchuka-B-class submarines — better know by its NATO reporting name Akula I. Nor is it likely that the Type 96 nuclear-power ballistic missile submarine will be any better. Chinese diesel submarines are, of course, another matter entirely.

But why are the Chinese lagging behind in nuclear submarines when they seem to be advancing in leaps and bounds in almost every other field?

link.

Can the US Afford to Replace its Cold War Nuclear Arsenal?

The greatest threat to the US long-range strike bomber (LRS-B) programme could be a submarine, with new a report showing that modernization of the sea-based leg of America’s nuclear triad dwarfs planned spending on airborne assets.

At a congressional hearing June 25, the US deputy secretary of defense Robert Work said the Pentagon is going to need an average of $18 billion per year between 2021 and 2035 on top of what it already spends on the nuclear force just to afford its planned submarine, bomber, intercontinental ballistic missile and cruise missile replacement efforts.

Work says without more money for nuclear modernization, the DOD will be forced to make “very, very hard choices” that impact conventional weaponry.

“The choice right now is modernizing or loosing deterrent capability in the 2020s and 2030s. That’s the stark choice we’re faced with,” Work says, noting that the current nuclear force that has been in place since the Cold War is “ageing out”.

He agreed with a recent analysis published June 23 by the Center Force Strategic and Budgetary Assessment that shows a almost doubling of spending on the sea-based leg of the nuclear force in the mid-2020s, just as LRS-B production and spending peaks.

link.

Russia Lays Down 6th new Ballistic Missile Submarine

The sixth Borey class submarine (Project 955A) was laid down at Sevmash [on Dec 26th, 2014]. The submarine was named "Generalissimus Suvorov".

link.