Arrow wrote:Yes Bulava is worse than Trident I from the 80s. Throw weight only 1150 kg. Sineva about 3000kg. More warhead, more decoy, more range. Sineva is comparable with Trident II but it is for liquid fuel. Bualava had a frequent failure. This is not good project.
Only 6 MIRV. Bulava has only 1150 kg throw weight. 10 MIRV when reducing the much range
Bulava has a liquid fuelled U/S to allow it to fly a low flat trajectory and to perform course corrections to defeat ABM systems, and is packed with penetration aids. Name me another SLBM anywhere with same? Sineva/Layner are the latest R-29 variants, much improved and with penetration aids, but still conventional missiles, with a pure ballistic path post-3rd stage burn-out and not capable of defeating ABM as the Bulava is. Sineva has better throw weight only because it is liquid fuelled not solid (liquids are higher-energy with superior ISP).
Trident D5 by comparison is old hat, 80s technology. It has a greater throw weight because its bigger and heavier (59T vs 36.8T), not because its somehow uber-freaking-awesome Yankistani tech.
D5 is claimed to have 90m CEP, and most references give Bulava ~350m, but this is all BS and based on solely on guesswork as its all strictly classified info. I'm sure the US knows the reality, but neither they nor the Ruskies are saying.
Regarding 16 vs 24 missiles of Borei vs Ohio, the reason is due to environmental operating conditions. Russian SSBNs operate in Arctic waters and potential collision with sea ice needs to be accounted in design. That means adequate spacing needs to be allowed between outer hull and missile compartments to ensure that worst-case impacts do not lead to loss of containment of missile tube. This means they must be more conservative than the US, who clearly don't have to worry about collisions with sea-ice (just Japanese fishing boats, pleasure craft and cargo ships
) so can pack their missiles in like sardines with minimal clearances.
Frequent failures? Bulava was an entirely new weapons systems, and didn't draw upon the long standing legacy of Soviet liquid-fueled SLBMs. Failures in development were inevitable, especially considering the generally degraded condition of Russian MIC back in the early 00s. BTW forget the BS list of success/failures in wiki. These fuktards have no fucking idea on the intent of the tests, and routinely inferred the auto-destruct of the 2nd missile in salvo tests as failures instead of the planned aborts that they were. Its another case of shit-canning the Russians at every opportunity.
Bulava IS a good project, and the missile has proved successful. In true Ruskie fashion, they will introduce evolutionary improvements as time goes on, and it will improve further.