R-31 slbm and associated platforms

[World B4]

Ïîäâîäíûå ëîäêè. Ïðîåêò 999

deepstorm.ru

Ïîäâîäíûå ëîäêè. Ïðîåêò 667ÀÌ

deepstorm.ru

Ïîäâîäíàÿ ëîäêà Ê-140. Ïðîåêò 667À, 667ÀÌ

Èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ñïðàâêà î ïîäâîäíîì êðåéñåðå Ê-140 ïðîåêòà 667À è 667ÀÌ - èñòîðèÿ ñëóæáû è ñïèñîê êîìàíäèðîâ.

deepstorm.ru

R-31 / RSM-45 SS-N-17 SNIPE - Russian / Soviet Nuclear Forces

https://web.archive.org/web/20080307141117/http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.151/missile_detail.asp

I am very curious about the R-31 missile and its deployment plans. The Soviets had one Yankee-II ssbn, the K-140, upgraded to fire this weapon, and it seems to have had a fairly active if brief career. I don't understand why they did this, sure we all know that the Soviets borderline couldn't stand to let a Yankee go unmodified, but an in-service missile limited to one ship is silly. What experimental value could this provide over the R-39, the solid fueled missile entering service in quantity at the same time? The project 999 submarine, the only design I'm aware of that was planned to use it from the get go, was cancelled in 1973, a year after the K-140 conversion started, yet the 667AM project continued and entered service in 1980, serving for a decade as a unique combat submarine. What was the point? They had enough Yankees and Deltas to match the American fleet, surely they didn't need one more boomer that badly?

 

[Dilandu]

What was the point? They had enough Yankees and Deltas to match the American fleet, surely they didn't need one more boomer that badly?

Mostly the internal power play betwen different industrial lobby in Party leadership. The navy clearly liked the R-31 - both because it was solid-fuel and because it could be retro-fitted into existing submarines. But both missile and shipbuilding industry wasn't happy. The KB "Arsenal" that designed the R-31 was a bit of underdog in the missie buisness, and their efforts were viewed with contempt by SKB-385, which designed R-27 and R-29 (and did not like the idea of giving up their estsblished position) and was working on R-39. The shipbuilding industry also didn't like the idea of major refits, since they were always time-consuming, rarely managed to fit into planned timescale, and generally weren't generating as much political capital as new construction; the shipyards preferred to build new boats.

So the K-140 refit was Navy & KB "Arsenal" attempt to demonstrate the viability of their concept, hoping that Party leadership would be impressed enough to support it. Apparently it didn't work; the opposition from industry was too strong, and sucsessfully lobbied for not proceeding with the idea any further.

 

[World B4]

Д-11 / Р-31 / 3М-17 - SS-N-17 SNIPE | MilitaryRussia.Ru — отечественная военная техника (после 1945г.)

Сборник справочной информации по отечественным системам вооружений выпуска после 1945 г., форум

militaryrussia.ru

Р-31( 4К10, РСМ-45, Д-11, SS-N-17 "Snipe") (1979г.)

war-russia.info

This site lists launch dates, and there is a gap between 1979 and 1990. I understand there were too few R-31s to fire off casually, but that seems so unhelpful for both an experimental boat testing capability and an operational boat that must show reliability. Militaryrussia says in 1987 a decision was made to extend it's service from 7 to 10 years, was there really no launch to verify? Would the sub have been retired then anyway, treaty or no? Perhaps there was political value in keeping it as a negotiating piece, one more weapon to get concessions for retiring?

Jonathan's Space Report | GCASO

Jonathan McDowell's new homepage

planet4589.org

 

[Scott Kenny]

Д-11 / Р-31 / 3М-17 - SS-N-17 SNIPE | MilitaryRussia.Ru — отечественная военная техника (после 1945г.)

Сборник справочной информации по отечественным системам вооружений выпуска после 1945 г., форум

militaryrussia.ru

Р-31( 4К10, РСМ-45, Д-11, SS-N-17 "Snipe") (1979г.)

war-russia.info

This site lists launch dates, and there is a gap between 1979 and 1990. I understand there were too few R-31s to fire off casually, but that seems so unhelpful for both an experimental boat testing capability and an operational boat that must show reliability. Militaryrussia says in 1987 a decision was made to extend it's service from 7 to 10 years, was there really no launch to verify? Would the sub have been retired then anyway, treaty or no? Perhaps there was political value in keeping it as a negotiating piece, one more weapon to get concessions for retiring?

Jonathan's Space Report | GCASO

Jonathan McDowell's new homepage

planet4589.org

That would be my guess.