There is no official confirmaiton of this, but it appears that Russia conducted a test of the Bulava missile a few days ago. The missile reportedly failed shortly after launch. If this information is correct, then Bulava is back to the unlucky days of 2006, when it failed in three tests in a row - on September 7, 2006, October 25, 2006, and December 24, 2006. One fight test that was conducted after that, on June 28, 2007, was reported to be successful (although there were some doubts about that too).
UPDATE 11/19/07: The test reportedly took place on November 12th, 2007.
UPDATE 11/21/07: Or maybe not.The information is contradictory. Another report says that test was conducted "over the weekend". November 10th?
UPDATE 11/22/07: Yes, it appears that the test took place on November 10th, 2007 after all.
The book
Comments
Was the solid fueled SS-N-20 Sturgeon SLBM arming the Typhoon Class (Project 941, Akula) considered a successful missile design by the Russian (Soviet) Navy? One always hears of the Typhoon's with awe but I wonder now with history to judge, was the missile design itself successful? Perhaps the solid fueled design of the Bulava is going to be hard to master? Given that, I think the problems are typical of a new missile system and will be solved in time.
Frank Shuler
USA
Was the Bulava test a confirmed news or just some rumors.
If they did tested it they would at least mention it
As an indication of the reliability of the SS-N-20, the Russians ripple launched-to-destruct an entire boatload of SS-N-20s without a failure back in 1997.
That said, I saw some sniping in the Nezavisamoe Voennoe Obozrenie from a designer from a competing design agency about how MTT is really not competent enough to work on the Bulava. We'll see.
To Austin: There was no official announcement, but the information about the test is fairly solid.
Where does this info come from,may I ask?
Why did Russians start developing "Bulava" at all? Ten years after initiating of this program it seems "Bulava" is an unfinished junk. A lot of money was spent on it unnecessary.
The better solution was and still is to acquire "Sineva" missiles in large numbers for entire Russian SSBN fleet!
Please, be patient. Bulava is the rigth long-term choice. Meanwhile Sineva will fill the gap.
Then the question comes: If they state 12-14 launches to ready the Bulava, and we have had "one" successful launch, what will this do the Borey? Will they hold off for the Bulava or fit it with the Sineva? With two awaiting commission next year, what effect will this have on that?
Why even use a new type of SLBM on the borei-class and not continue with the SS-N-23? It may be old but it works and the Delta IV are being equipt with new ones right now. The borei would have been in service for some time now if just the SLBMs would work.
I think this information is incorrect!
Because, Russian navy earlier reported that 2 more test launch of bulava missiles will be till end of 2007 and 3 more in 2008. After that first borei could enter service.
But Also navy chief reported that another 2 test launch would be done not from typhoon class submarine, but from borei yuri dolgoruki.
But first borei isn't start sea trials jet and when they start (probably) in December 2007 one of first test would be launching the bulava missiles.
No, the information about the failure is correct. But it would be interesting to see the statement about 3 launches in 2008. Do you have a link?
> But it would be interesting to see the statement about 3 launches in 2008. Do you have a link?
- Here the link where Admiral Vladimir Masorin states that testing of Bulava will be finished in 2008 'with 2 launches on maximal range'...
izvestia.ru/armia2/article3106888/index.html
This article entitled 'Bulava will strike across Hawaii'... ;-)
Ok maybe it's true, But do You have link which proves that there was a test of bulava missile. I mean probably kommersant and lenta.ru would mention that if it is ever happen.
for nedim:
Alas...
In The Kommersant newspaper already there are no people who could receive such information.
Ok, I believe You.
That really bad for russian navy.
I was just doubt in that information because for example spacewar.com or some other western military news agency didn't reported anything about that.
They always have information when something bad is happen with Russia or Chinese weapons.
But Ok maybe You are right, but I just want to ask where You get that information?
Did spacewar.com and other publish anything in 2006, after those failed tests? I'd be interested in taking a look.
I had a look in my link-collection, but I didn´t find anything on the Bulava failures at spacewar.com. I think they reported about it, but they have mostly only articles taken from RIAN, AFP and other news agencies.
Yes several times,
for example http://www.spacewar.com/reports/What_Is_Wrong_With_The_Bulava_999.html
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Bulava_Missile_Not_Ready_For_Mass_Production_999.html
But I 100% read on ria novosti or pravda.ru that 2 more test launch in 2007 would me done from borei class rather then typhoon class submarines.
They were reporting on Russian press reports. So, if there is nothing in the Russian press, there will be nothing in spacewar.com as well.
In my view, Russia is wasting money on this program; not just the Bulava but the project 955 as well. It would be better used by building more single MARV warhead Topol-M's. The first strike "advantage" of SLBM's is not great enough to warrant the expense, especially since most strategic targets in Russia are located so far inland. Assuming a first launch by Trident SSBN's, Russia would still have more than enough time to launch all of it's ICBM's, so US "first strike" capability is a moot point. Besides, Russia needs to bolster it's SSN fleet more than it does it's SSBN fleet.
Pavel, are u planning any updaits about current status of the russian strategic forces? If I remember right, at previous years there were two updaits in a year.
The first 4 tests of Bulava were successful and accurate. So why can't they go back and just copy the same. May be they tried some modifications for reducing weight or improving the guidance system in the later disigns.
Did it ever happen that post-soviet Russia tested an ICBM but never reported the test or its results?
To reko: It happened before with Bulava - it has been increasingly harder to get any information about tests. If I remember correctly, after one failure the military fired the persons who passed the information to journalists.
To Anton: Yes, I am planning an update. There have been no dramatic changes, though.
First of all. There is no way there will be a Bulava launch from Borey this year. A missile launch is NOT one of the first thing you test on sea-trials, rather the last thing before the boat is operational. Why test it on Borey when you have a test-platform for it? And the typhoon probably has a lot more equipment for measuring data, and a trained crew.
Remember also, each launch could be a test of a specific level of missile launch/flight, it might be considered a success even if the missile doesnt reach target. The first launch was only a pop-up test for example.
And..show me information that the first 4 test were a success..
There is absoultely no proplem launching a new boat without missile ready for it. It takes year to get a sub fully operational, missile test is on of the last thing you test. This boat has a lot of new equipment the crew has to learn, it is a new class of submarine, not only a new boat. So if the Bulava missile arent ready until lets say 2-3 years that would not be a problem.
As with any new system being developed patience must prevail. However, it does seem on hind sight that the Russians: 1. Were too hasty in scrapping Bark, and 2. Too lenient with Bulava. Which brings me to this question: What IS the advantage of Bulava over Sineva?
The advantage of Bulava over Sineva: Among its claimed abilities are evasive maneuvering, mid-course countermeasures and decoys and a warhead fully shielded against both physical and EMP damage..
> What IS the advantage of Bulava over Sineva?
- Two real and dramatical advantages:
(a) 'Better cheap' policy: cheap mass production of the SS-NX-30 'Bulava' SLBM, SS-27 'Topol-M' & SS-2x 'RS-24' ICBMs. Bulava, maximally unified with ground-based ICBMs 'Topol-M' and 'RS-24', will require common sources of materials to manufacture, as well as will surely share a lot of spare parts with 'Topol-M' / 'RS-24'.
(b) Solid propellant of 'Bulava', brings more safety onboard; note that in 1986, Soviet Union already lost one of it's strategic subs due to liquid propellant leakage (it was K-219, Project 667A 'Navaga', sunk in the vicinities of Bermuda islands).
Additional comments about 'better cheap' policy:
- It seems that president Putin and our militaries decided (after some logical analysis and a lot of supercomputer simulations ;-) ), that only cheap in mass production ICBMs / SLBMs, are able to depreciate the mass deployment of US ABM regiments.
- Really, one GBI interceptor is priced near 100 million dollars; one Topol-M costs near 900 million roubles (36 million dollars); so, Russia will be able to built almost three 'Topol-M' at price of single GBI. For example, - usage a 'unified' RVs, suitable for both 'RS-24' and 'Bulava', saved 600 million dollars (15 billion roubles) already, only at R&D stage...
"The" advantage of Bulava over Sineva: Solid Fuel.
But... Bark was also solid fueled.
> But... Bark was also solid fueled.
- Yes. And the Bark's direct predecessor - SS-N-20 Sturgeon, - was solid-fuelled, too. It seems that from 1980s it's a 'new paradigm' of Russian Navy: solid-propelled SLBMs provides more safety onboard, they are more reliable etc.
- I think that the main thing lead to this sad fate of 'Bark', was it 'expensiveness of ownership': really, SLBM with a start weight near 95 tons will require monstrous and expensive subs, special coastal infrastructure etc.
- So, economy killed the 'Bark'.
Thanks Lociz, Russian and Kolokol. Having had no accident that I can remember(Sineva)I would consider this system as safe as a liquid propelled one is ever gonna be. Its throw to weight ration outshines Bulavas and I suspect so does its range. Those are two very powerful reasons for me not to buy the Bulava yet. Yes and I understand the integration part of the equation, but to that I would offer that variety and non total reliance on ONE system only is prefered. I would also argue that Topol is a fairly new system still and that older workhorses such as Stileto and Sineva should always be there as insurance in case of what just happened to Bulava happens to the Topol force. What is there to guarantee that, say the next 6 Topol launches fail? Would one feel good about having ALL of ones eggs in one basket? I wouldn't.
I truly don't understand the reasoning behind MIRVing the Topol-M. One of the many reasons being its throw to weight ratio which suggests a single warhead rocket. Sineva on the other hand WAS designed as a MIRV system from the get go. I guess the advantages of Bulava over Sineva are too subtle for me to grasp. I guess I agree with people that have voiced the opinion that Bulava is a waste of money, and this is not in hind sight.
It is never too late to shift the focus to 'Sineva' since Bulava's success is overdue. However Russia must continue efforts to find an answer to the problems facing SLBM with Marv warhead sooner or later for that is the only missile which will completely ensure Russia's security. I fully agree with Boris Buliak not to put all eggs in one basket.
Although it is not related to Bulava, does anyone know if the two tests of SS-21 SRBM in Kasputin Yar were carried out as announced in this article?
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_Plans_To_Test_Fire_2_Ballistic_Missiles_999.html
to Martin:
Yes. Two SS-21s were launched as announced.
@Alexander S.:
Thank you for the confirmation of the launches. Are those missiles launched with real conventional warheads or dummys?
Quoting a part of the cited article:
------------------
By the end of this year, we will test launch another five missiles, including a RS-18 (SS-19 Stiletto), a RS-12M (SS-25 Sickle), a missile interceptor and a heavy RS-20 (SS-18 Satan)," Colonel General Nikolai Solovtsov told a news conference.
----------------
A missile interceptor again after the two tests during October? What's going on here?
to Martin:
I don't know particularly about these two SS-21. But usually dummys are used, not real warheads...
May be they began tests of promised 53T6M? :-)
The article was published before the last interceptor test, so I think they mean the last one as well as the last UR-100N launch. The R-36M launch will be the Dnepr launcher with the Theos Satellite for Thailand I think.
to Martin:
Yes, I think so too.
Another OT question: At google earth I found some sites like this near Tatishchevo: lat=51.4934121621, lon=45.5666796414
I thought it would be relative easy to convert a silo from an old missile to the new Topol M. But this construction site looks like they are building a new silo. So what is happening there? Or is it demolition work of a site which is not used anymore?
Not AGAIN...
Anyway, for those that are crying about the cost of developing a solid fuel rocket ... will you be saying the same if one started leaking its goods like K-219's R-27 and takes down a very expensive sub with it?
Consider also Kursk's 65-76. I bet the Soviets/Russians were saying that they don't need to switch rapidly to monopropellant torps like the UGST when there were "perfectly good" 65-76s around.
Anyway, I doubt at this stage, the Yuri Dolrugkiy(sp?) can even be switched to using a liquid-fueled missile - differences in support equipment and missile dimensions. They already did massive revisions after they gave up on the Grom.
The only thing to do now (from a deterrence POV) is to install the Bulavas (dummies?) onto the new sub and send it to sea as "experimental operation". At least the things won't endanger the sub...
What happend with the Bulava? Where did you get your info from? I can't find anything on the web....
John
The R-36M (Dnepr) with Theos will launch in Q1 2008. So if Colonel General Nikolai Solovtsov is right, there should be an extra R-36M launch or the delay of the Theos launch was not known at that time he was quoted. The launch will be from Dombarovskij, so does anyone know which silo (coordinats) is used there for space launches or do they use different silos each time? I found most of the silos on GE but it would be interessting to know where the launch and the launch preparations take place.
Martin
I do not even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was good.
I do not know who you are but definitely you're going to a famous blogger if you aren't already
;) Cheers!