A flight test of the Bulava ballistic missile that was conducted at 19:50 MSK (15:50 UTC) on September 7, 2006 apparently ended in failure. According to a representative of the Ministry of Defense, quoted by ITAR-TASS, the missile strayed off course and fell into the sea. The missile was launched from underwater from the Dmitry Donskoy submarine of the Northern Fleet, deployed in the White Sea.
This is the first failed flight test of the missile. The first two flight tests - on September 27, 2005 and December 21, 2005 - were successful. (The very first test, on September 23, 2004, was a pop-up test that did not involve firing of missile engines. UPDATE 09/08/06: One more pop-up test, on December 11, 2003, involved only a mock-up of the missile.)
UPDATE 09/14/06: The cause of the failure was a malfunction of the first stage of the missile at the time of ignition.
The book
Comments
This is interesting. I noted that there have been no tests of the missile for a significant period and this has now been followed by a failure. This will turn the pressure up on many people, especially Solomonov.
I wouldn't say the failed test is that big of a deal - these things happen. But I agree - the failure will not make Solomonov's position in the missile dispute any stronger.
I wonder what were the test parameters? Was this a routine engine or telemetry test? Or, a RV issue? Have we attempted to deploy a multi-weapon test payload on any launch yet?
Remember, this technology is rather sophisticated and pushing the design envelope is expected. Russia will learn from the failure and correct the mistakes.
Frank Shuler
USA
To Pavel:
A single test failure is never a big deal, particularly as far as SLBMs are concerned. The Trident I had two consecutive failures in 1978, for example. However, due to poltitical considerations, MIT badly needs background noise such as ICBM launches or development of the "invincible warhead". With "Bulava" being portrayed as the great white hope of Russian deterrence and other programmes in the shadows, a failure has considerable political significance.
To Frank:
There are few details so far, but it is being reported that the missile fell into the sea "several minutes" after launch, having deviated fron its trajectory. This suggests a propulsion or flight control problem.
As regards MIRVs, I believe that they were successfully tested in December.
Thanks, James.
Frank Shuler
USA
It was the second stage that malfunctioned.
We don't know yet if it was the second stage. I haven't seen any reliable information about the nature of the problem. RIA Novosti said that "the failure happened during the second part of the test", but it is not the same as "second stage malfunctioned"
on de.rian.ru i read something about bulava-m, bulava-30 and bulava-47 missiles for the new borei class submarines. are these different versions of the bulava ? or are they allready planning improved versions ? and failures do happen. better now than in operational state.
Bulava has quite a few different names, but "Bulava-M" does not seem to be one of them. "Bulava-30" is. "Bulava-47" doesn't sound right - that would be inconsistent with the current naming tradition.
According to some sources, the missile was in unguided flight since the moment it cleared the surface, which may indicate a failure of the guidance system.
Pavel, I am a bit puzzled about 'several minutes' - in my non-expert opinion, after several minutes the missile should have been pretty far from the sea. That is, if the sea in question is the same White Sea. In principle, it would have been important to fish it out of that sea, but that would probably be an operation beyond the capacity of the Navy. But if you are right about the guidance system, theoretically, the self-destruct system should have been triggered.
As for Solomonov, he is in fact quite safe: the Bark is dead and buried, all the political stakes are on Bulava, so funding cannot be cut - they can scream what they want in the Kremlin, but the failure gives him the opportunity to demand more money.
Pavel
I agree that "several minutes" doesn't sound quite right. The source on the unguided flight is quite reliable, so I guess it is the guidance system. I don't know how the self-destruct mechanism works, but I think it is not impossible for the malfunction to be severe enough to disable it as well.
As for Solomonov, yes, Bark is no longer a problem for him, but NPOMash may be - they are breathing down his neck.
How is the official plan about production of the missile? When should it start and where will it take place? And how many units can be produced per year?
Martin
I mean the quantity production of the missile.
Apparently, the plan is to have five Project 955 submarines by 2018. This would mean 60 missiles. The first submarine is not expected to be in service until at least 2008.
Pavel, it has been reported that the Borey-class submarines, Alexander Nevsky and the Vladimir Monomakh will be built with 16 launch tubes in place of the 12 such launchers on the initial Yuri Dolgoruky. Is there any additional information? Thanks.
Frank Shuler
USA
Hello,
just a question to the Dmitry Donskoy: Are all 20 tubes of the boat able to fire the Bulava or are there just one ore two redesigned for the missile and the others empty? I mean you don´t need 20 tubes to conduct one or two missile tests a year.
Martin
I saw the answer on my question under the "submarine on patrol" posting, so no worries.