Russia/ABM/split

[Vympel]

Would you rather we deploy an essentially defensive technology to maintain a strategic defense, or follow the Russians into building new nuclear weapons delivery systems?

The US is going to have to build new delivery systems anyway. Those Minuteman IIIs aren't going to last forever. The Russians had no choice but to design build new delivery systems because they can't extend the service life of their own ICBM arsenal forever. By 2020-2025 the force that existed in 1991 will be compeltely gone.

[Adrian Laguna]

The Russians had no choice but to design build new delivery systems because they can't extend the service life of their own ICBM arsenal forever. By 2020-2025 the force that existed in 1991 will be compeltely gone.

Of course, with the slow arrival of ABM systems it might be better to invest in bombers like the Tu-160 instead of ICBMs. Pity the assembly lines are in the Ukraine, which has lately had rather strained relations with Russia.

[K. A. Pital]

Pity the assembly lines are in the Ukraine

You meant to say "were" in the Ukraine. We are out-phasing Ukraine's production base from our heavy industry. It hurts our economy of course, but it's best to do stuff like planes, ships and rockets on your own, without having to pay lip-service to a nutty President whose hostility to Russia borders on the "hate" level.

[Vympel]

Pity the assembly lines are in the Ukraine

Hmm? Tu-160s are built at KAPO, Kazan, Russia. The only aircraft production that Russia lost when Ukraine went is Antonov, which were an acceptable loss, given that Tupolev and Ilyushin could pick up the slack (with the exception of An-124, which will be a joint Russo-Ukrainian venture if it ever resumes production, which is supposedly the plan, and even then I think only for commercial use).

The assembly lines for some of the USSR's ICBMs (the SS-18 and SS-24 in particular) were in Ukraine, was that what you were referring to?

Anyway, Tu-160 production is supposed to continue in the near-term, but the PAK DA program for a new strategic bomber has apparently started.

You meant to say "were" in the Ukraine. We are out-phasing Ukraine's production base from our heavy industry. It hurts our economy of course, but it's best to do stuff like planes, ships and rockets on your own, without having to pay lip-service to a nutty President whose hostility to Russia borders on the "hate" level.

Of course, Russia's helicopter engines are still built by Motor Sich in Ukraine, but I hear that Russia's finally made arrangements to transfer production to within Russia.

[K. A. Pital]

PAK DA will most likely be a heavy modernization of the Tu-160, at least based on what I heard. A new machine based on the old one.

Of course, Russia's helicopter engines are still built by Motor Sich in Ukraine, but I hear that Russia's finally made arrangements to transfer production to within Russia.

There's really a lot of losses however. The Energia boosters (Zenith) rockets are the last-generation Soviet tech, the loss of Nikolaev shipyards and everything possible associated with it: heavy cruisers and carriers, as well as NITKA for naval aviation. Construction of new plants and docks will take time and waste lots of resources. The loss of Kharkov plants for tanks.

[Vympel]

There's really a lot of losses however. The Energia boosters (Zenith) rockets are the last-generation Soviet tech, the loss of Nikolaev shipyards and everything possible associated with it: heavy cruisers and carriers, as well as NITKA for naval aviation. Construction of new plants and docks will take time and waste lots of resources. The loss of Kharkov plants for tanks.

Nikolaev doesn't really matter that much though, does it? I mean, the Kirov battlecruisers were built at the Baltic shipyard, weren't they? If they could build them there, the capablility of Nikolaev is superfluous in that respect, though the carrier capability was a real loss that they're only now getting back with that 100,000t facility.

As for Kharkov, - given the loss of two out of three tank facilities in Russia proper - the Leningrad and Omsk facilities - heck UVZ survived only thanks to civilian production and India's T-90 orders - the Kharkov plant likely wouldn't have lived long either. It was a real loss in terms of rendering the T-80UDs and T-64 force defunct though (well according to photos I've seen T-64s are still used for training, I imagine through parts cannibalization).

[Vympel]

Oh and split.

[K. A. Pital]

Nikolaev doesn't really matter that much though, does it?

Nikolaev constructed all Slava cruisers which is basically an undersized Kirov (main armory is just 4 missiles less) and with sufficient modernization - S-300FM for new cruisers - or something like that, a new project along the lines... could be the basis of a surface fleet. With no atomic plants, they would be cheaper to make, while retaining huge offensive capability of a cruiser in any coastal or inner-sea operations.

Replacing or restoring the Kirov fleet? If there's no money to restore, replacing them with a Slava analogue could work as an interim solution.

Also, if shipyards are occupied with making DDGs for China, it's hard to imagine the Russian Navy re-arming itself with new surface warships any larger than a frigate.

[Sea Skimmer]

The US will need new nuclear weapons delivery systems, and the 2018 regional bomber will be one of them, but it may well never buy another ICBM or SLBM for that purpose. Minuteman III could potentially be made to last until 2040 if equipped with new RVs, new warheads and a new guidance unit. A number of missiles have already gotten the warhead/RV off Peackeeper, and nearly all missiles have now had their existing as rocket motors repoured with new propellent. Trident D-5 could also be made to last this long with fewer upgrades. By the 2030s and 2040s its quite likely that ABM and laser weapons will have made large ballistic missiles obsolete, or at least too ineffective to make sense to deploy new ones.

Soviet era missiles were designed differently with no regular maintenance (big advantage in Siberia) and are thus much harder to upgrade so they have to buy new ones now. The new SSBN is at least more useful then the new ICBMs though.

Nikolaev constructed all Slava cruisers which is basically an undersized Kirov (main armory is just 4 missiles less) and with sufficient modernization - S-300FM for new cruisers - or something like that, a new project along the lines... could be the basis of a surface fleet. With no atomic plants, they would be cheaper to make, while retaining huge offensive capability of a cruiser in any coastal or inner-sea operations.

Replacing or restoring the Kirov fleet? If there's no money to restore, replacing them with a Slava analogue could work as an interim solution.

Kirov had a pretty specific role as a command ship, which has a lot to do with why it is so huge. Given all the advances in electronics that have been made, plus the shrinking of the Russian fleet a replacement is really not logical, a much smaller ship or a new carrier can handle the command role. As a normal combatant Kirov is not impressive for its 25,000 tons. Slava is pretty flawed, but I could certainly see a ship of that general size and capability forming a piece of the new Russian fleet.

[Vympel]

Yeah but it doesn't look as AWESOME.

Also, if shipyards are occupied with making DDGs for China, it's hard to imagine the Russian Navy re-arming itself with new surface warships any larger than a frigate.

Are they even doing that at the moment? I thought all the Pr 956s (four) for China were done.

[K. A. Pital]

Kirov had a pretty specific role as a command ship, which has a lot to do with why it is so huge

We had designated command ships, the SSV vessels (Zabaikalie, Primorie, Ural). The Kirov's task was not just to play the role of a command post, but to provide heavy weaponry to a carrier group - IIRC, according to VMF programme, 6 Kirovs were designed to operate in conjunction with 2 Ulyanovsk and 4 Kuznetzov (of which 2 later would be also replaced for the Ulyanovsk-class).

A new carrier could handle a command role, but before 2015, it's hard to see us getting any. We've only started making a dock for their construction.

Kirov and Slava are actually very similar as both anti-ship and anti-air combatants. The Kirov's major difference is a nuclear plant and thus autonomy. The Slava has roughly the same amount of offensive weaponry and anti-air defenses.

P.S. Yeah, all 4 Pr.956 are transferred to China. Three new 2038.0 are constructed at Northern Werft.

[Vympel]

Well the Kirov has Granit SSMs - the Slava has the older, less capable Bazalt SSMs (unless they've been rearmed with Vulkans, which is a persistent rumor). The later Kirovs also have more ammo, AFAIK, as well as better self-defense armament.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, Peter the Great boasts 1xS-300FM - an upgraded version of S-300F "Fort", which is a very capable system on it's own. But the main deal is upgrading S-300 blocks on other Kirovs and Slava to the "FM" standard (as well as restocking the launchers with P-1000 Vulkans on the ships which weren't already re-stocked, if such exist - as I heard, all still serving Slavas as of now underwent refit, a which time their missiles were swapped for the P-1000) - this would make the difference almost neglible. Eight S-300 launchers versus 12 on the Kirov, and 16 AShMs versus 20. But the cost difference is a serious argument. Even maintaining the Slavas as battle-worthy ships is easier than the Kirovs.