The meeting of the Military-Industrial Commission (VPK) that was expected to consider the future of the Bulava missile apparently took place a week or so ago. The commission agreed that at this point there is no alternative to the Bulava project, so it will continue. Yuri Solomonov promised that MITT will deliver the goods eventually.
At this point the only certain thing is that Bulava and Yuri Dolgorukiy will not enter service this year, as Solomonov promised earlier. And probably not the next year. Some reports mentioned 2012 as the new target - I'd be rather skeptical about those, but it does not seem out of question either. Whatever the new target, I don't think it's a problem for Russia at all - it's not like it needs Bulava.
The book
Comments
Pavel:
I’m struggling to understand this issue. The Military-Industrial Commission (VPK) was convened to pass judgment on the Bulava missile system because the original entry date for this system to be introduced to the fleet has slipped? Or, has the Russian Navy lost confidence in the Bulava? There have been several successful launches and several failures as would be expected in any test program. Has some design flaw been discovered in the process that would lead the Kremlin to the conclusion this system will need massive re-development? Is there a hint this re-development may well result in a missile that is structurally incompatible with the current Yuri Dolgorukiy submarine? Personally, I have every confidence the Bulava will be a successful missile in time but this whole situation is beginning to look like the “Bark” all over again.
Frank Shuler
USA
> Personally, I have every confidence the Bulava will be a successful missile in time but this whole situation is beginning to look like the “Bark” all over again.
- Frank, 'Bulava' is our fault. Our REAL fault.
At least at her present state...
Frank: Of course, there is no reason to dismiss Bulava - it will be completed eventually. It does not look like the commission decided that there are serious flaws with the missile.
But as you can imagine there are quite a few people who were not happy with the fact that the project was given to MITT. These things are (almost) never about missiles - they are about resources, power, etc.
Pavel:
Agreed. I suspect it was politics that killed “Bark” in the first place. Bulava will succeed in time and Russia has the time with the Delta IVs and Sineva in service.
Frank Shuler
USA
The problem is that MITT has no experience in creating submarine-launched missiles. The idea was that the commonality between the Bulava and Topol-M would be a cost-saving factor, I can see no other logical reason for not completing the Bark.
Even though Russia might not need Bulava critically from operational point of view.
But its nevertheless a very time critical project , or else these Project 955 Borei class will be like an expensive white elephant , without any purpose.
My thinking is if the next 3 Bulava tests succeeds consecutively , then it would be good to arm the Borei with these.
So a 6 month schedule per test , would make it see operational somewhere by mid 2009.
I guess that it's high time for MITT to start land tests of Bulava.
Actually, for Bulava Russia forgot the N-1 (N-1 is the soviet's analog of Saturn-V)lesson. In that case Soviet space engineers decided not to carry out N-1 land tests. We lost the Moon then. For much the same reason we're loosing the Bulava project. All previous SLBM were tested at the Nenoksa testing area. As for Bulava russia has a lot of money and, at the same moment, does not have common sense.
From the data given on Bulava, it sounds more like a completely different missile in relation to the Topol-M, and has very little commonality (different diameter engines, etc.) hence the spate of failures. It would have been easier to design a SSBN that could fit the extra length of the standard Topol-M. I think this missile was a mistake. Better to upgrade the best of the previous generation.
Astute, the N-1 was a terrible idea from day 1. 30! engines in the first stage alone? Enormous plumbing problems were guaranteed by that point alone, the added problems caused by the need to transport the stages by train to Baikonaur (which required disassembling the stages and then reassembling them) made the concept practically unworkable.
> I suspect it was politics that killed “Bark” in the first place.
- Not a 'politics', Frank. In fact, it was just a GREED: during the official tender on developing a new 'base SLBM', MITT proposed 'less expensive', 'unified with Topol-M' and 'more progressive' design.
Well, proposals and real achievements are quite different things...
> In that case Soviet space engineers decided not to carry out N-1 land tests.
> 30! engines in the first stage alone?
- Yes; 24 - 30 engines on a first stage was a really bad idea, a real 'design flaw'. More engines - more 'probability of failures'; refuse from land ('stand') testings also played a negative role...
Maybe Russia should reconsider deploying the Bulava since most of Russia's missiles are deployed on the bottom of the ocean.. ;)
> Maybe Russia should reconsider deploying the Bulava since most of Russia's missiles are deployed on the bottom of the ocean.. ;)
- What 'most Russian missiles', for example? SS-18 Satan in 'deepwater mod' at Pacific littoral? :-)
>...Not a 'politics', Frank. In fact, it was just a GREED....
To Russian:
Greed has real names and you know them perfectly. "Greed" is the people who took the decision to stake all on the MITT. Our "greed" found a lot of money to make over "Dmitry Donskoy" from "Bark" into "Bulava". The off-the-shelf "Bark" 's equipment is going bad. I won't be surprised at the fact that the "greed" will find money again for just another "super" testing "Bulava".
He trolling. Ignore him.
> Greed has real names and you know them perfectly. "Greed" is the people who took the decision to stake all on the MITT. Our "greed" found a lot of money to make over "Dmitry Donskoy" from "Bark" into "Bulava".
- These 'real names', surely consider a 'real economy' in the nearest future from 'unification' a Bulava with Topol-M.
Theoretically, they was right: only economy on state support of different raw material suppliers and other 'subcontractors' for two types of missiles, - should be significant...
But this 'economy' considerations would be valid only if 'Bulava' worked good... Bulava still not work at all, - at least now.
I am sure that entire post-Soviet SSBN and SLBM development programs were a disaster. Why didn't Russians agree on liquid-propelled "Sineva" as a sole future SLBM missile?
It was ready ten years ago, it is good missile at every aspect, it is a logical result of decades long and thus proved development path of Soviet SLBMs, it was made by the most experienced in this area Makeyev Design Bureau.
The Borey-class SSBNs should have been converted with this SLBM in mind back in the late 1990s. Then a few of this boomers would be seaworthy now. Unfortunately it didn't happen and that is why now sea leg of Russian nuclear triad is at a brink of collapse!
All these infinite delays in the "Bark" and "Bulava" programs seem like a proof of great stupidity or some diversionary activity...