• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Fifth Generation PLARB
Submarine Nuclear - Rocket, Ballistic

Atomic missile submarines of the type "Borey-A" will no longer be laid down. This was reported on 19 April 2019 by TASS head of the Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering "Rubin" Igor Vilnit. "Borey-A" will no longer be pawned," said Vilnit. He made it clear that in the future submarines of more advanced projects will be laid. “Everything will go according to plan,” the head of the bureau concluded.

This is a case of the classic Soviet-era conflict between the the Design Bureaux, which wanted to crank out an endless succession of new designs, and the production associations, which wanted to keep producing what they already knew how to produce, and avoid the risks of innovation. Borey strategic missile submarine cruisers were designed by the Central Design Bureau for Marine Equipment Rubin and belongs to the fourth generation of nuclear submarines. As noted in the Central Design Bureau of Marine Engineering (CDB MT) Rubin, nuclear and non-nuclear submarines of the next generations will have smaller sizes, but greater stealth compared to the existing ones. So there is also probably a conflict between Malakkhite and Rubin, the two submarine design bureaux.

"All creators and operators of absolutely all countries strive to reduce the size of submarines. This is due to minimizing the cost of their creation, as well as the fact that the physical fields of such submarines differ significantly for the better. Our fleet is no exception" Igor Vilnit, General Director, TsKB MT Rubin, told TASS 19 March 2018. In addition, according to him, today the industry has "new opportunities", so there is no need to "strive for gigantism." "In contrast, the smaller the ship that performs certain functions, the better," - says the head of the "Rubin".

In the future, the division of submarines into strategic and multi-purpose ones should be preserved, says Vilnit. "Project thought is never limited, therefore everything can be combined, technically it is possible. But does this make sense? The principle of modularity is fair, but, from my point of view, devices, electronics, energy. Each type of boat has its own task. And the ability to perform a hundred different tasks when only one will be used in practice is expensive and inefficient, "he said.

The competing Malakhite design bureau is working on the Husky multi-purpose submarines of the fifth generation. These may be relatively low cost, with the price of boats competing with the technical characteristics of submarines for the title of the main advantage. Already, there are suggestions that the new submarines will cost significantly less than the Yasen-M project boats currently under construction. Information about the boats of the Husky project is currently extremely limited. It is known that the 5th generation of the 5th generation multi-purpose nuclear-powered submarine with cruise missiles (PLARK) is involved in the Malakhit SPMBM, information about this was first reported in the Russian media back in December 2014. At the same time, it was reported that the development of a new submarine is being carried out on its own initiative, without a technical task from the Russian Defense Ministry . On July 17, 2015, Russian media reported that the new boat was designed by the Malachite designers on the same basic platform, but in two versions: a multi-purpose submarine focused on the fight against enemy submarines and a cruise missile system.

Recent Russian design experience saw the initial Project 935 boat with a submerged displacement of 17,000 tons superceded by the 24,000 ton Project 955, with 16 missiles, which was followed by the 26,500 ton 955A with 20 missiles. The US Navy experienced similar displacement growth, though with fewer rather than more missiles. The US Navy’s decision to design Columbia-class SSBN(X) boats with 16 SLBM tubes rather than 20 on the Ohio-class was one of several decisions the Navy made to reduce the estimated average procurement cost. Although the SSBN(X) is to have fewer launch tubes than the Ohio-class SSBN, it is to be larger than the Ohio-class SSBN design, with a reported submerged displacement of 20,815 tons (as of August 2014), compared to 18,750 tons for the Ohio-class design.

On June 26, 2013 Rear Admiral Richard Breckenridge, the US Navy’s Director for Undersea Warfare (N97), discussed options that were examined for replacing the Ohio-class SSBNs. " ... the Navy – working with U.S. Strategic Command, the Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense – has formally examined various options to replace the Ohio ballistic missile submarines as they retire beginning in 2027. This analysis included a variety of replacement platform options, including designs based on the highly successful Virginia-class attack submarine program... a variety of writers have speculated that the required survivable deterrence could be achieved more cost effectively with the Virginia-based option...

An SSBN design based on a Virginia-class attack submarine with a large-diameter missile compartment was rejected due to a wide range of shortfalls. It would:
• Not meet survivability (stealth) requirements due to poor hull streamlining and lack of a drive train able to quietly propel a much larger ship
• Not meet at-sea availability requirements due to longer refit times (since equipment is packed more tightly within the hull, it requires more time to replace, repair and retest)
• Not meet availability requirements due to a longer mid-life overhaul (refueling needed)
• Require a larger number of submarines to meet the same operational requirement
• Reduce the deterrent value needed to protect the country (fewer missiles, warheads at-sea)
• Be more expensive than other alternatives due to extensive redesign of Virginia systems to work with the large missile compartment (for example, a taller sail, larger control surfaces and more robust support systems)

"Some have encouraged the development of a new, smaller missile to go with a Virginia-based SSBN. This would carry forward many of the shortfalls of a Virginia-based SSBN we just discussed, and add to it a long list of new issues. Developing a new nuclear missile from scratch with an industrial base that last produced a new design more than 20 years ago would be challenging, costly and require extensive testing... Additionally, a smaller missile means a shorter employment range requiring longer SSBN patrol transits. This would compromise survivability, require more submarines at sea and ultimately weaken our deterrence effectiveness. With significant cost, technical and schedule risks, there is little about this option that is attractive."