Bulava SLBM Thread:

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....

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....

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...

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.

- 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.

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.

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

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/

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

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.

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

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

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.

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