Pavel, it is certainly a very typical PR counter-strike that after two failed tests, the information on Bulava has become so restricted. However, from the scraps of available information it appears possible to figure out that the launch itself did not take place. The fact that the missile did not leave the tube means a) that the test sub was in serious danger; and b) that the failure is of different character than the two previous.
Regarding a), is that true that in good old Soviet days the initial series of tests used to be conducted not from a sub but from a special platform (perhaps, even underwater)?
The only real implication of this failure is that by the scheduled time of Putin's departure, there will be no operational sub of the new generation. Not a tragedy, certainly, but a political fiasco.

If the sub returned back and there is no official news of success or failure , Most likely the test would have been aborted.

Apparently, the third stage malfunctioned, even though it worked "almost perfectly".
http://www.strana.ru/news/301884.html
The head of the Russian space agency suggested that 12-14 test launches may be needed before the "Bulava" can enter service. Being a typical Russian official, he cannot speak the language properly, so it is unclear whether he meant that the 12-14 tests would be in addition to the ones that have already happened or including previous tests.
As an illustration of his language skills, consider this quotation - "Сейчас программа по "Булаве" идет в области летных испытаний" - "The programme of Bulava is now continuing in the field of flight testing".

The evidence suggests that the missile did, in fact, leave the submarine. Perminov at a press-conference today said that the problem was with the third stage.

The Bulava development program did indeed skip the stage of tests from a submerged platform, but I don't think it is problem.

Pavel:

Why would you think testing from a submerged submarine not significant in the development cycle of Bulava?

The question of the day, is this a manufacturing problem (component problem) or a design issue? Thoughts?

Frank Shuler
USA

Wasn't the second (successful) test conducted from a submerged submarine? Also, I was under the impression that pop-up tests of dummy missiles had preceeded the actual flight test phase.

Ah, I get Pavel's comment now - platform != submarine! They skipped testing the missile from a submersible barge, using a real sub instead from the outset.

well,the good and bad thing is that they are really launching bulava's now every one and a half months, perhaps they just wanted to get a borei class sub into service before putin leaves office. That looks like a lot of pressure, and we've seen in the past this can have bad consequences.Just remember the r-16(or was it the r-14) drama. Does it really matter if the borei gets into service one or two years later ? i get the feeling that they are a bit to progressive, or playing trail and error games. well it's just a guess from my side.

I just read an article on kommersant which says that the first two stages worked perfectly,and the third stage exploded. It also says the third stage exploded over the sea of okhotsk according to sources - which is, as far as i believe how ballistic missiles work impossible, if the missile was launched from the white sea. The third stage would have burned out long before, right ? It could could only be this way if the third stage would be something like an air breathing stage - i'm sure that the source was not right, but perhaps - as a late christmas present :-) - the manouvering warhead is acually an air breathing third stage ?

Sad to see that Bark was cancelled after 3 failures to be replaced by the “almost ready” Bulava. Just words! Now we see 3 failed Bulava tests but the program must go on.
If Bark was to receive the same political support it will end, sooner or later, in an actual system. But an actual system much more powerful than the tiny Bulava, more in the Trident-II class. Evidently MITT lobby was very efficient.

1. "Bark" is death!

2. "Bulava" is almost death!

3. Russian sea lag of a triad is also at the brink of collapse!

What the hell???

Do Russian rulers really have nothing between the ears and intend to take the gas pipe???

I am not so pessimistic. Nevertheless, serious schedule delays are to be expected. In the mean time Sineva can do the job. But if this lamentable trend persists, perhaps, one or two of remaining “Thyphoons” should be reconverted to carry Sineva. After all its throw weight is twice the one of the Bulava.

Rokosovsky:

Just a little patience here. Remember, other than the R-29RM Sineva (SS-N-23) missile, Russia has never built a sea-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). And, the Sineva project was really designed around the need to rebuild the existing SS-N-23 with only Russian build components. Look at all the delay and expense from the French as they move from their M45 to M51 series SLBM. I’ll wager this third stage issue that now seems to plague the Bulava is more of a manufacturing issue than design. I applaud Russia for the media coverage these Bulava trials have generated and the openness of the official discussions. Don’t fret, Russia will get this all figured out and the SS-N-30 will be successful.

Frank Shuler
USA

I don't see a lot of "openness of official discussions" here.

Vincent:

I must be far older than you. (smile) In the past, an official or even “semi-official” Soviet media source or governmental agency commenting on a failed Soviet missile launch would be heresy. Times have changed.

The fact we can openly discuss out differences or agreements here is a sign of these changes.

Frank Shuler
USA

The third failure of Bulava means a very disappointing result as well as desperation for Russia. Obviously the fault has not been identified in the previous two test failures as also reported. As I said earlier could there be some kind of deployed chemical laser weapon by U.S. in space that is targeting the Bulava? How else can one answer that after two resounding successes, no one in Russia knows what went wrong even after extensive analysis of the flight. Without pin-pointing the faults there is no use continuing testing. As they say, doing the same thing over and over again never produced a different result!

I dont think its some chemical or some other laser attaking the Bulava in test flight.

The problem is with post failure analysis at MITT,There seems to be a sense of urgency in doing the analysis and flight testing a new missile as soon as possible , perhaps under pressure , perhaps due to haste to get it done.

What needs to be done is a complete analysis of failed tests and even some minor design changes if required , Dosent matter if the flight test gets delayed by 6 months , but the end result will be a more productive one.

Perhaps the previous two test were simple ones and as they started doing some complicated flight testing or testing newer systems on board they encountered the problem,

Given the fact that Russia planned to test only 4 consecutive successful tests of Bulava (much less than the 10 they normally did) the very 3rd test is unlikely to be a new system. However more details will be known only after the analyses of the failure are announced if ever. In the meantime the Borei class subs will have to wait and watch!

So the new generation missile underperforms its replacement. Definately not allright with me, unless, at least as Manfred Schneeberger states "...the manouvering warhead is actually an air breathing third stage" which would give it a technological advantage not to mention higher hit ratio. While on Bulava what are the chances are further chopped down version will become next medium range bm ofr Russian forces? They've been hinting hard about pulling out of INF.