I liked the comment by a retired military officer, Suvorov, quoted above. Indeed, the US installed and is manipulating puppet regimes in Ukraine and Georgia to hurt Russia, but what if Russia started messing in Mexico?

And historically, the US threw a fit when the USSR deployed missiles in Cuba, but how was that different from US missiles in Western Europe and Turkey aimed at the USSR?

I am sorry to say, that the US foreign policy has always been about gaining an unfair advantage, yet hypocritically proclaiming principles of justice and fairness..

The only countries with long range bomber aviation are Russia and the US- and the US has been proving for years that they’re extremely useful. Where’d you get the idea they’re “going the way of battleships”?

I meant that in the strategic role, in the context of our discussion about Russian ballistic missile subs.

US long-range bomber fleet is useful because US fights regional wars far away from the home base.

Russia is in a completely different situation. It has only one task: protect itself and its natiral-resource-rich territory from upcoming aggressors, primarily China and USA.

Long-range bombers are an ineffective and archaic part of the nuclear triad, and Russia with its limited defense budget can’t afford to waste money at it. This money is better spent on mobile land-based ICBM’s and on submarine platforms.

Are you sure? All sources I could find indicate that Bark was a development of the R-39 missile. Can you give a source for this (don’t worry, I’m prepared to believe it, but I’d like to see proof)?

You are correct, the R-28 was in a sense a development of the R-39… However, the improvement was precisely in the areas of reducing mass and dimensions – primarily due to the 2nd-gen solid motors. This resulted in a smaller and much lighter missile – but, alas, with too many problems…
It was also supposed to be launched from under the ice, and have a multi-trajectory capability. A thing ahead of its day indeed.

Sorry, would have to look for sources… it’s been a while since I heard of the Bark — from the days when it was still to be THE missile…

As for the Typhoon subs, all 3 of them are indeed planned to remain on strength. As I mentioned before, their bulk along with the strengthened sail make it an ideal – an unique – Arctic platform.

That’s utterly besides the point. The Cold War is over and both sides are reducing their warheads to the ~2,000 range. Not to mention that the issue is more warheads than missiles.

Or is it? Read what McCain said yesterday. There are unfortunately too many power groups and US defense contractors dying to obtain new Cold War projects.
Read “National Security Strategy” released by the White House on March 16.

Then there’s China which will in time undoubtedly move to capture Russian Far East.

If you have a 16 or 24-strong silo count you don’t have to load all of them. But should the political trends go sour, you’d have the option of increasing your capability by simply building extra ammo and dropping it into the vacant silos.

I think Russia is being gullible and vulnerable. See recent report:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

Russia needs to beef up strategic defense ASAP and have room for growth yet.

As Russian tsar Alexander III put it: “Russia has only two allies: Army and Navy”. This holds true today more than ever…

So they develop an entirely new sub type for a missile that is 1.5 metres longer than an SS-N-18? A bit of over kill isn’t it? If it was just a new missile then Delta V would make more sense with a slightly higher rear area and another length exstention.

It’s not the length, it’s the mass (primarily) and diameter (secondary) of the R-39 that resulted in the catamaran design of the Typhoon. Two pressure hulls run alongside, while the missile battery is between them.

Incidentally, the R-29 which arms the Delta IV is the best in the world in terms of mass/payload ratio (besting even the Trident D5). But it’s a liquid rocket, so it is noisier to operate than a solid-propelled one. So the Soviet Navy had to bite the bullet and accept the inefficiency of the new R-39 and to develop the Typhoon to carry it.

Of course the R-30 (Bulava) is a much better system, likely besting the Trident D5, but I for one don’t have the necessary info to claim it.

Well, one thing is certain – the Akula/Typhoon(Project 941) class is so large out of necessity.

Soviet solid-fuel rocket technology lagged significantly behind the US. The R-39 solid-fuel rocket which arms the typhoon is 16 m long, 2.4 m in diameter and weighs 90 tons! Compares poorly against the Trident D5 (13m, 2.1 and 58, respectively, if I remember correctly).

Hence the need to build a sub that could carry such a monstrous rocket. Enter the Typhoon.

There is, however, one advantage the Typhoon does have over the Ohio class, and its the strengthened sail which can crush through up to 3 meters of ice! This allows the sub to spend most of the time in the Arctic, where it’s hard to detect.

And, of course, lets not forget the aforementioned swimming pool! Also, amzing as it seems, I recall hearing that they have small pets (cats and birds, perhaps hamsters) living in special quarters to relieve the psychological pressure of having to spend months on the boat barely moving beneath the ice….

Welcome to the forum, Canberra! Great post, very sensible.