Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Share
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 786
    Points : 804
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Big_Gazza on Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:29 pm

    Interestingly, some fuktard pro-establishment wikiwhore has been tampering with the Wikipedia RSM-56/Bulava page and has been spiking the launch history descriptions. Apparently any test where warheads "hit unsuccessfully" (WTF does that mean, and how would he know?) is now considered a FAILURE. Apparently having a warhead land outside of its nominal CEP envelope means that the entire launch is a complete failure and its back to the books for the incompetent drunken Ruskie missile designers.... Never mind the other warheads that landed on target and bathed the hypothetical Yankistani city in a flash of hard radiation before sweeping it away in an incandescent pressure wave of billion-degree hypersonically-expanding plasma. Yeah, that sounds like an abject failure to me....

    russia
    avatar
    Project Canada

    Posts : 622
    Points : 627
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Project Canada on Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:54 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:Interestingly, some fuktard pro-establishment wikiwhore has been tampering with the Wikipedia RSM-56/Bulava page and has been spiking the launch history descriptions.  Apparently any test where warheads "hit unsuccessfully"  (WTF does that mean, and how would he know?) is now considered a FAILURE.  Apparently having a warhead land outside of its nominal CEP envelope means that the entire launch is a complete failure and its back to the books for the incompetent drunken Ruskie missile designers....  Never mind the other warheads that landed on target and bathed the hypothetical Yankistani city in a flash of hard radiation before sweeping it away in an incandescent pressure wave of billion-degree hypersonically-expanding plasma.  Yeah, that sounds like an abject failure to me....

    russia

    Yes, thats exactly the same problem/issues i have with wikipropagandia, for example, the article about the 1999 moscow apartment bombings is clearly written to put suspicion on the Russian government as the main culprit of the entire incident. While this kind of propaganda is favorably acceptable, making the same kind of wording in the 9/11 article to accuse the US government of being behind the attack will most likely get you banned Rolling Eyes

    Now., isn't Russia supposed to be working to put up their own online Encyclopedia to rival wiki? I wonder what happened to that project, i haven't seen any new updates about it
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3147
    Points : 3270
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  kvs on Sat Aug 20, 2016 12:45 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:Interestingly, some fuktard pro-establishment wikiwhore has been tampering with the Wikipedia RSM-56/Bulava page and has been spiking the launch history descriptions.  Apparently any test where warheads "hit unsuccessfully"  (WTF does that mean, and how would he know?) is now considered a FAILURE.  Apparently having a warhead land outside of its nominal CEP envelope means that the entire launch is a complete failure and its back to the books for the incompetent drunken Ruskie missile designers....  Never mind the other warheads that landed on target and bathed the hypothetical Yankistani city in a flash of hard radiation before sweeping it away in an incandescent pressure wave of billion-degree hypersonically-expanding plasma.  Yeah, that sounds like an abject failure to me....

    russia

    One of the little details all of this Bulava and Russia bashing misses is that the USSR considered 20 successful test launches as minimum for
    certification. Post 1991 Russia was bankrupt and tried to save some money on the testing phase.

    http://russianforces.org/navy/slbms/bulava.shtml

    There have been 25 launches between September 27, 2005 and November 14, 2015 of which 9 have been failures. So another 4 successful tests
    need to be conducted to reach 20. From the above it is also clear that 8 out 9 failures predate 2010. That is, the bugs are being worked out
    and there is simply no indication that this is a failed design that needs to be abandoned.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 188
    Points : 190
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Aug 20, 2016 8:42 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:I agree, if only partially. This is their 1st solid-fueled SLBM, & it's based on Topol ICBM. It was done to save $ & shorten development time. From now on, if I see their problem-free trials & patrols before the last Borey-class sub armed with the Bulava is decommissioned, I'll believe it!

    No, thats not true.  The R-39/SS-N-20 carried by the Pr 941 Akula SSBBNs was a solid-fuelled SLBM.  Also the RSM-56 is not based on Topol ICBM simply because both are designed by the same bureau (MITT).  You make such simple errors of fact, and expect us to accept your hysterical worse-case scenarios?  FFS... I don't know why I am even wasting time in arguing with a troll...

    Well, thanks for that! But, the R-39 had a three-stage solid-fuel boost design with a liquid-fuel post-boost unit carrying up to 10 warheads; the RSM-56 Bulava too has 3 stages; the 1st and 2nd use solid fuel, while the 3rd stage still uses a liquid fuel for high maneuverability during warhead separation.  The Chinese JL-2, is a 3-stage, solid-fuelled missile. The US Trident II is a 3-stage, each stage containing a Solid-fuel rocket motor. So, to me, (call me whatever u want!), all other things being equal, mixing solid & liquid fuels in the same missile doesn't sound as safe as having all stages with solid fuel.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 786
    Points : 804
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Aug 21, 2016 9:39 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Well, thanks for that! But, the R-39 had a three-stage solid-fuel boost design with a liquid-fuel post-boost unit carrying up to 10 warheads; the RSM-56 Bulava too has 3 stages; the 1st and 2nd use solid fuel, while the 3rd stage still uses a liquid fuel for high maneuverability during warhead separation.  The Chinese JL-2, is a 3-stage, solid-fuelled missile. The US Trident II is a 3-stage, each stage containing a Solid-fuel rocket motor. So, to me, (call me whatever u want!), all other things being equal, mixing solid & liquid fuels in the same missile doesn't sound as safe as having all stages with solid fuel.

    Liquid-fuelled stages have several advantages, but the main one for an ICBM is that it is throttle-able. Solids have a pre-determined burn rate so their trajectories can be determined accurately once their thrust vs time characteristics are know. Bulava has a throttle-able final stage so has greater ability to shape its final trajectory than an all-solid missile such as a Trident D5. Bulava therefore poses problems for ABM systems, especially for those that rely on exo-atmospheric engagements where incoming missile trajectory needs to be known precisely in order to compute an intercept as the interceptor is expending its energy climbing out of the gravity well and has limited capability to make large trajectory changes (as the lack of air for aerodynamic control surfaces forces it to use motor power for all course changes).

    Additionally, liquid fuels are more energetic than solids (higher ISP), and delivers better throw-weight performance for a given mass.

    Russian SLBM engineers are using liquid upper stages for very good reasons.....
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 21, 2016 11:39 am

    - I know, but such conversions been done before on subs with years of life remaining in them, both by USSR & USA: 4 Yankee Notch & 16 Yankee Is to SSNs, 1 Yankee to SSGN, 1 Yankee Stretch to a carrier for Paltus mini-subs, & finally, the 4 oldest USN Ohio SSBNs to SSGNs.

    They were not practical attempts to replace SLBMs with cruise missiles... generally they were to remove the former SSBN from the list of strategic weapons platforms and to test the concept of heavy cruise missile carriers.

    For the Russians a modern SSGN makes rather more sense and is significantly more potent because modern cruise missiles not only can have a much greater range, but their increased terminal accuracy means conventional warheads can be used making them much more usable.

    However as a replacement for SLBMs they lack speed and are rather too interceptable except from a bomber.

    (ie as a first strike launched from the Pacific or Atlantic going up against a fully operational air defence system a lot would be shot down, whereas after the first strike by ICBMs the cruise missiles released by strategic bombers 6-8 hours will have passed and most airfields and HQs and air defence systems will be in tatters when the cruise missiles start exploding...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 188
    Points : 190
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:03 pm

    I never implied that SLCMs are = or can replace SLBMs! But converting still useful SSBNs to SSNs/GNs/special purpose is cheaper than building more of those classes!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 23, 2016 3:05 am

    It is not cheaper if you have no need for the resulting vessels.

    It would be more valuable to convert old SSBNs into "research vessels" and mother ships and test ships.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 188
    Points : 190
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:58 pm

    GarryB wrote:It is not cheaper if you have no need for the resulting vessels. It would be more valuable to convert old SSBNs into "research vessels" and mother ships and test ships.

    Well, they needed & used them for a few years; the USN still uses all 4 SSGNs. I won't be surprised if more of its SSBNs r converted for all of the above roles. They could be used as UAV carriers as well! http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ssgn-tactical-trident-subs-special-forces-and-super-strike-01764/
    Combined, the four SSGNs represent more than half of the Submarine Force's vertical launch payload capacity with each SSGN capable of carrying up to 154 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles. The missiles are loaded in seven-shot Multiple-All-Up-Round Canisters (MACs) in up to 22 missile tubes. These missile tubes can also accommodate additional stowage canisters for SOF equipment, food, and other consumables to extend the submarines' ability to remain forward deployed in support of combatant commanders' tasking. The missile tubes are also able to accommodate future payloads such as new types of missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and unmanned undersea vehicles. The SSGNs have the capacity to host up to 66 SOF personnel at a time. Additional berthing was installed in the missile compartment to accommodate the added personnel, and other measures have been taken to extend the amount of time that the SOF forces can spend deployed aboard the SSGNs. The two forward most missile tubes were permanently converted to lock-out chambers that allow clandestine insertion and retrieval of SOF personnel. Each lock-out chamber can also accommodate a Dry Deck Shelter (DDS), enhancing the SSGNs' SOF capabilities.
    During conversion, each SSGN received the Common Submarine Radio Room and two High-Data-Rate antennas for significantly enhanced communication capabilities. These additions allow each SSGN to serve as a forward-deployed, clandestine Small Combatant Joint Command Center. The SSGN is a key element of the Navy's future fighting force. With its tremendous payload capacity, dual crew deployment concept, and inherent stealth, each SSGN brings mission flexibility and enhanced capabilities to the warfighter. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4100&tid=300&ct=4
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:31 am

    The main problem is that an SSBN is designed for very different missions compared with an SSGN.

    An SSGN is pretty much an attack sub and in the Soviet/Russian Navy that means it is a carrier hunter like an Oscar.

    A converted SSBN on the other hand will have rather more capacity for weapons, but will be optimised for slow speed hiding operations... not hunting carriers.

    The waters are muddied by the fact that generally Soviet and Russian SSGNs previously had no land attack capability so a Russian SSGN was an anti ship system, but now with land attack as well as anti ship and anti sub weapons able to be launched from the UKSK systems they suddenly become multi role vessels with wider capabilities.

    As shown by their experience in Syria some times it is useful to have a platform able to carry a large number of land attack cruise missiles.

    Quite a few Corvettes and strategic cruise missile carrying aircraft were used for a large number of attacks but having a converted SSBN able to carry 30 or 40 UKSK launchers for 240-320 misiles you could wage a war on your own... and with 5,000km range missiles you could be fairly flexible as to where you attack from...

    Of course as all Russian naval surface vessels will have UKSK launchers then the need for such a vessel is not so critical.

    Desirable, but not critical.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Project Canada

    Posts : 622
    Points : 627
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Project Canada on Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:46 pm

    Reports of Failed bulava launch...,




    Launched from a submarine "Bulava" self-destructed in flight

    Launched from a submarine "Bulava" self-destructed in flight
    One of two of the ballistic missile "Bulava", issued a submarine of strategic purpose "Yury Dolgoruky" in the White Sea to Kamchatka Kura test site, self-destructed
    September 27, 2016, 21:37
    This was reported on Tuesday, 27 September, TASS reported with reference to the press service of the Defense Ministry.

    Experimental volley firing two rockets from a submerged position was made on 27 September. Both missiles as highlighted in the Defense Ministry, "nominally came from the mines of the submarine to the desired path." Fighting first missile unit, performing the complete cycle of the flight program, successfully hit the target at the site.

    "The second rocket after the first stage of a mission self-destructed", - reported in the Defense Ministry, without specifying the reasons.
    November 14, 2015 the Ministry of Defense reported that the ballistic missile submarine of the Northern Fleet, "Vladimir Monomakh" made a successful salvo firing two missiles "Bulava" from the White Sea to the Kura test site in Kamchatka. However, on November 19, sources close to the military authorities, reported "Lente.ru" that one of the two launches of ICBMs could not hit the intended target. The reason was the damage she had received at the start.

    R-30 "Bulava" - solid-fuel intercontinental missile sea-based. Its development began in Russia in the late 1990s. The missile is designed to equip new strategic submarines of Project 955 "Borey".

    "Yury Dolgoruky" - strategic nuclear head 955 "Borey" submarine project. Submarine was laid down in 1996 and launched in February of 2008. He joined the Naval Fleet of Russia January 10, 2013 /

    https://defence.ru/vmc/zapuschennaya-s-podlodki-bulava-samolikvidirovalas-v-polete/

    avatar
    Project Canada

    Posts : 622
    Points : 627
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Project Canada on Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:16 pm



    Russian nuclear sub test-fired 2 Bulava missiles from White Sea


    One of the missiles self-liquidated after the first stage of the flight program


    MOSCOW, September 27. /TASS/. The Yuri Dolgoruky nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine has conducted an experimental launch of two Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles from the White Sea, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Tuesday.
    "Today, on September 27, the Yuri Dolgoruky strategic nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine conducted experimental launches of two Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles from the White Sea to the Kura firing range on the Kamchatka Peninsula," the ministry said. "Both missiles were fired from the submarine’s silos in a routine regime. The first missile’s warhead completed the entire cycle of the flight program and successfully hit the designated targets at the firing range. The second missile self-liquidated after the first stage of the flight program."
    The missiles was fired from the submerged submarine.

    The lead Borei-class submarine of Project 955 - Yuri Dolgoruky - was delivered to the Russian Navy in January 2013, however, the boat was commissioned with the Navy combat forces only in 2014. The Yuri Dolgoruky submarine is in service with the Northern Fleet. The Yuri Dolgoruky is 160 meters long and 13 meters wide, with a displacement of 24,000 tonnes. The Project 955 nuclear-powered submarine is armed with the advanced R-30 Bulava missile system with a flight range of more than 8,000 kilometers (4,971 miles). The system is furnished with multiple individually-targeted reentry vehicles.

    Each Project 955 nuclear-powered submarine can carry 16 solid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missiles.

    A multiple launch of two Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles was last performed by the nuclear-powered submarine Vladimir Monomakh on November 14, 2015.


    http://tass.com/defense/902632


    Self-liquidated?, is that a soft term to describe a malfunction that resulted to failure? Or is it intentional? The way they describe the results for the 2nd missile is odd.

    TheRealist

    Posts : 78
    Points : 112
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  TheRealist on Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:33 pm

    I think this is the reason why the Ministry of Defense gave an R&D contract to the Makeyev Design Bureau to design a new SLBM, given that Bulava is experiencing some "gremlins" in the system. I think they should accelerate the replacement program.

    I remember reading from Flot.com about an announcement by Yuri Solomonov that MITT is developing their own replacement of the Bulava some months ago.
    avatar
    AK-Rex

    Posts : 45
    Points : 45
    Join date : 2015-12-22

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  AK-Rex on Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:41 pm

    Success reported in salvo Bulava launch from Yuri Dolgorukiy



    On September 27, 2016 the Yuri Dolgorukiy submarine of the Project 955 Borey class conducted a salvo launch of two Bulava missiles. The missiles were launched from a submerged submarine deployed in the White Sea. According to the official statement, the launch was fully successful. Warheads of the first missile reached their targets on the Kura test site. The second missile self destroyed "after completing the first phase of the flight".

    The ministry of defense called the launch "experimental," but the nature of the experiment is not clear. One report quotes former chief of the Navy Main Staff as saying that the launch was supposed to check the readiness of the strategic fleet, so maybe the experiment checked the command and control procedures. But it's just a guess.

    The destruction of the missile shortly after launch is unlikely to be the experiment in question. This appears to be a normal practice in salvo launches - at the very least it saves money, since the missile probably carries mockups instead of working upper stages and warehads. Indeed, this is probably what happened in the previous salvo launch, in November 2015 -- there were reports about destruction of one missile. These reports were probably right, but it was wrong to conclude (as I did) that it was a failure.

    This launch has its own history. The previous one, in November 2015, conducted by Vladimir Monomakh, was reported to be not entirely successful. There were reports that suggested that the missile that flew to Kura was damaged as it was leaving the launch tube and as a result its warheads missed the targets (we may note that reports about today's launch emphasized that "both missiles left their tubes and followed the assigned trajectories"). Then, there was a report that Vladimir Monomakh will make another attempt in June 2016, before leaving to the Pacific. However, it has left without a launch.


    Source
    avatar
    zg18

    Posts : 881
    Points : 957
    Join date : 2013-09-26
    Location : Zagreb , Croatia

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  zg18 on Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:13 pm

    Bulava salvo launch




    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3147
    Points : 3270
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  kvs on Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:21 pm

    AK-Rex wrote:Success reported in salvo Bulava launch from Yuri Dolgorukiy



    On September 27, 2016 the Yuri Dolgorukiy submarine of the Project 955 Borey class conducted a salvo launch of two Bulava missiles. The missiles were launched from a submerged submarine deployed in the White Sea. According to the official statement, the launch was fully successful. Warheads of the first missile reached their targets on the Kura test site. The second missile self destroyed "after completing the first phase of the flight".

    The ministry of defense called the launch "experimental," but the nature of the experiment is not clear. One report quotes former chief of the Navy Main Staff as saying that the launch was supposed to check the readiness of the strategic fleet, so maybe the experiment checked the command and control procedures. But it's just a guess.

    The destruction of the missile shortly after launch is unlikely to be the experiment in question. This appears to be a normal practice in salvo launches - at the very least it saves money, since the missile probably carries mockups instead of working upper stages and warehads. Indeed, this is probably what happened in the previous salvo launch, in November 2015 -- there were reports about destruction of one missile. These reports were probably right, but it was wrong to conclude (as I did) that it was a failure.

    This launch has its own history. The previous one, in November 2015, conducted by Vladimir Monomakh, was reported to be not entirely successful. There were reports that suggested that the missile that flew to Kura was damaged as it was leaving the launch tube and as a result its warheads missed the targets (we may note that reports about today's launch emphasized that "both missiles left their tubes and followed the assigned trajectories"). Then, there was a report that Vladimir Monomakh will make another attempt in June 2016, before leaving to the Pacific. However, it has left without a launch.


    Source

    This interpretation is vastly more plausible than the "yet another failure" one. It seems that the navy is deliberately keeping the confusion alive.
    This would be consistent of not giving Uncle Scam an accurate picture of Russia's military capability. But at the same time there is a need to
    inform the hubris-filled, drinker of his own propaganda koolaid that Russia is no pushover.
    avatar
    Project Canada

    Posts : 622
    Points : 627
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Project Canada on Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:39 pm




    What’s wrong with Russia’s new Bulava missile?


    October 3, 2016 NIKOLAI LITOVKIN, RBTH

    Only one of Russia’s two new Bulava intercontinental ballistics reached its target during the latest tests in the White Sea. Russian experts say that now it is necessary to understand if this was a production defect or if the new weapon has more serious problems.

    On the night of Sept. 28 the Yury Dolgoruky nuclear submarine tested two Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). The sub was supposed to navigate at a depth of 50 meters in the White Sea and strike a target on the opposite side of Russia, at the Kura firing range on the Kamchatka Peninsula.

    Since these were just tests, the missiles were not carrying nuclear warheads. Instead they contained electronic warheads that transmitted flight information to the control center.

    However, only one of the two missiles reached its target. The second, according to military personnel, "autodestructed" after the first flight phase and fell into the sea.

    Military sources at the Gazeta.ru publication say that the missile was slightly damaged on launch, making it impossible for it to reach its destination. The Russian Defense Ministry declined to comment.

    What could have gone wrong?
    This was not the first time that something has gone wrong with the Bulava: 8 out of 26 launches of the missile have been unsuccessful.

    However, despite these unconvincing statistics, specialists insist that it is too early to write the project off as unsuccessful, since combat technology does not immediately reach the necessary level of reliability: It first goes through a series of tests, during which there are often problems.

    For example, according to an RBTH source in the Russian defense industry, the heaviest and most powerful Russian intercontinental ballistic missile, the R-36M2 Voevoda, also exploded in the air and fell during the first 30 trials but was then perfected and gained a reputation as a reliable missile.

    "In Bulava's case a series of mistakes was made during construction,” said the source. “Firstly, the developers, who had never worked with ICBMs for nuclear submarines, in certain stages limited themselves to computer models rather than testing at sea. Secondly, the government should not have been trying to optimize costs and deadlines by unifying ‘ground’ missiles with ‘sea’ missiles.”

    Russian military experts say that it is too early to understand the reason for the failure of the missile. It could be down to insufficient improvement after unsuccessful launches or a production defect.

    "You need to look at the missile's exact production date,” said Vladimir Yevseyev, deputy director of the Institute of CIS Countries. “Was it produced during the period of unsuccessful launches that already had technical defects or after having been supplied to the armed forces?"

    Yevseyev explained that experts will now analyze the incident and the military will take appropriate action.

    "This requires extremely serious investigation. If a part of the missiles supplied to the Russian army breaks down after being launched, this could reduce the combat readiness of Russia's nuclear forces and could even lead to a technogenic catastrophe," he said.

    The Russian Navy currently has three 955 Borei nuclear submarines, which were produced for the Bulava ICBM.

    Each of them can hold up to 16 Bulava-class missiles with a range of around 5,000 miles (8,000 km). The Bulava can carry from 6 to 10 hypersonic maneuverable individually guided nuclear warheads with a yield of 100-150 kilotons, which can alter their flight trajectory in terms of height and course.

    By 2020 the Russian Navy will obtain eight project Borei and Borei-A missile strategic submarines (the Borei-A is a modified submarine that can carry 20 Bulava ICBMs).

    http://rbth.com/defence/2016/10/03/whats-wrong-with-russias-new-bulava-missile_635311

    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3147
    Points : 3270
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  kvs on Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:52 am

    Gazeta.ru is a liberast media source. It simply cannot be trusted. I find their claims about knowing what the warheads were like
    and their state to be extremely dubious. Like they have a 5th columnist working for them who has the details...hey wait, maybe they
    do and that would explain sabotage.
    avatar
    gaurav

    Posts : 357
    Points : 353
    Join date : 2013-02-19
    Age : 37
    Location : Blr

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  gaurav on Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:02 am

    kvs wrote: It simply cannot be trusted. I find their claims about knowing what the warheads were like
    and their state to be extremely dubious.

    There are certain points which must be considered while discuccing this failed launch.

    1. My conclusion: Tests were fully successful ,the second launch was experimental. The Russ MOD clarified that Yuri Dolguruky
      is used for experimental tests not for armed forces exercises.The russ navy conducted full SSBN tests yesterday it self.
      Experimental launch could mean anything I donno. (some launch procedure , new Bulava missiles , ABM busting techniques, salvo launch procedures etc).
      The Russ Mod does not want to show the true capabilities of Bulava to U.S reconnaisance satellites. That is why they are very reserved
       in testing the advanced missiles.
     

    2. MITT(moscow inst thermat tech) is  a very secretive org . No info is available to any Russ media. Most of the russ media takes takes their sources from Janes or related U.S based agencies while reporting critical Russian missile tests.
      Apart from Bulava they are also producing Rubezh ICBM this missile is also in 30 ton category or something.
      Rubezh is clearly successful project .Rubezh just like Bulava is undergoing constant upgrade and the division will be deployed by 1st quarter 2017 .
    3. We can confidently say news coming from gazeta or sputniknews (regarding failures) of missile tests failures are patently false.

    4.Also remember Moscow thermal tech) constructed topol and Topol-M missiles . They are fully successful products hence to doubt them(MITT) is akin to saying arctic is in south pole.They have been developing ICBM since 1960 so it cannot be that they sabotaged the entire Bulava
    program.

    5.Bulava is fully ready and stocked and piled up. Almost 150 units of Bulava have already been produced. Bulava is now the Topol-M of the russian defense industry. There are absolutely nil(0 percent) chances that this missile will fail except made to do it deliberately.

    saynow

    Posts : 2
    Points : 4
    Join date : 2017-03-27

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  saynow on Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:30 pm

    Malfunction due to defect in manufacturing
    I think bear should see and revise their soviet knowledge background
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:54 am

    Malfunction due to defect in manufacturing
    I think bear should see and revise their soviet knowledge background

    Not unique to Russia... the first US Space Shuttle that exploded was because of a frozen O ring... that is pretty basic stuff really... you have launch parameter limits and they ignored them.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10517
    Points : 10994
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  George1 on Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:35 am

    Bulava launch from Yuri Dolgorukiy

    On 26 June 2017 the Yuri Dolgorukiy submarine of the Project 955 class performed a successful launch of a Bulava missile. The missile was launched from a submerged submarine deployed in the Barents Sea. The warheads successfully reached their targets at the Kura test range in Kamchatka.

    This is the 28th launch of Bulava missile. Previous launch took place in September 2016 - it was a two-missile salvo launch from Yuri Dolgorukiy.

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2017/06/bulava_launch_from_yuri_dolgor_1.shtml


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10517
    Points : 10994
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  George1 on Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:08 pm



    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Sponsored content

    Re: Bulava SLBM Development Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:30 pm