Now that the START Treaty exchange data have technical details on the Bulava missile (RSM-56 in the treaty), we can compare it to Topol-M. Bulava, as we have been repeatedly told, was supposed to have a lot in common with Topol-M. In reality it is about a third shorter and quite a bit "stockier". Here is the table of Bulava and Topol-M characteristics as they are defined in the START Treaty:
| Bulava | Topol-M | |
| Number of stages | 3 | 3 |
| Length of assembled missile without front section, m | 11.5 | 17.9 |
| Maximum diameter of missile airframe (without stabilizers, raceways, protruding elements), m | 2 | 1.86 |
| Launch weight, tonnes | 36.8 | 47.2 |
| Total length of missile as a unit with launch canister (with front section), m | 12.1 | 22.7 |
| Total length of missile as a unit with launch canister (without front section), m | 19.4 | |
| Length of launch canister body. m | 12.1 | 19.4 |
| Diameter of launch canister body (without protruding elements), m | 2.1 | 1.95 |
| First stage | ||
| Stage length. m | 3.8 | 8.04 |
| Stage diameter, m | 2 | 1.86 |
| Weight of fully loaded stage, tonnes | 18.6 | 28.6 |
| Second stage | ||
| Diameter (if different from first) |
-- |
1.61 |
| Third stage | ||
| Diameter (if different from first) |
-- |
1.58 |
The book
Comments
There would have to be some diferences between the missles as the underwater launch eviorment posses certain restrictions on the design.
Missles probably have simular guidence systems and some comanality in electronics.
Range however be simiular inspite of the differences as the width of the roket would help compensate for it,s shorter length as far as fuel capacity is concered.K.EGAN