No news is bad news for Bulava. It wasn't a good sign that there were no reports about the Bulava flight test that was reportedly scheduled for yesterday, July 15, 2009. Now the first reports suggest that the test failed, although the reason for failure is not yet clear. I hope we'll get more information in the day or two.
Another failure (that would be seventh failure in eleven tests) would certainly provoke a serious soul searching in Russia. It is probably too late to shut the program down, but the fact that the industry is not able to get the missile to fly (whether it is the issues of design or production quality control) is quite worrying.
The thing to keep in mind, though, is it's not like Russia really needs Bulava - it could maintain perfectly adequate strategic force without it. But Russia chose to invest a lot of political capital into the project (here is an interesting piece in NYT that makes this point). Now it discovering that this strategy has its risks - a high-profile program may fail.
UPDATE 07/16/09: RIA Novosti now reports that it was a failure of the first stage.
The book
Comments
Failure of the first stage? If memory serves me, the first stage of the Bulava has always “worked” before. Puzzling why this can’t be resolved. I have absolutely no doubt in time, the Kremlin will get this right. However, the political decision to build the Bulava missile came at the expense of fielding the Topol-M in the numbers needed.
That will always be the legacy of the Bulava.
Frank Shuler
USA
What is the solution? The way I see it there are 3 options:
* invest the required effort to make the Bulava work (no telling how difficult that may be at this point)
* Modify the Boreis to carry the Sineva (a successful and excellent design but could be hard to modify the sub).
* Contract the Makeyev beureu to build a new missile for the Boreis, throw MITT out.
I fail to understand why Russia does not simply produce more Sineva's as it is superior to Bulava in nearly every aspect of both performance and reliability. The problem is that this "navalized" version of the Topol- M has very little in common with the Topol-M other than the fact that it is solid fueled. What a misguided waste of money. Bulava should be dropped, and the new Borey class refitted to carry Sineva. Why does Russia have to make this so difficult?
Failure of the first stage? If memory serves me, the first stage of the Bulava has always “worked” before. Puzzling why this can’t be resolved. I have absolutely no doubt in time, the Kremlin will get this right. However, the political decision to build the Bulava missile came at the expense of fielding the Topol-M in the numbers needed. That will always be the legacy of the Bulava.
Frank Shuler
USA
One thing i don´t understand about the Bulava tests is
why the Russian navy don´t test the missile launch from the ground until it´s validated?
Isn´t more easy and less expensive to test and launch the missile from the ground until i has a certification of production quality?
It appears also that Russian officials believe in some kind of sabotage against the deployment of this system.
Some reports suggested that Bulava failure is due to manufacturing quality and not design faults. This does not appear to be true since Topol-M and RS-24 have not had such problems. Obviously if quality of manufacture was a problem, it should have occured in missiles other than Bulava also. The failure is obviously a design failure - could be linked to the low trajectory of its delivery from under water.
I was thinking that Russia did need the Bulava to keep an SSBN force, but I redid some math. Assuming a 30-year lifespan for Russian SSBNs, the last of the Delta IIIs (1976-82) will be retired soon. The Delta IVs, however, which I gather have been better maintained, were built from 1986-92, giving an expected retirement of 2016-22.
That should give enough time for Russia to build Project 955 submarines and develop and build a missile for them. Of course, the 955s will be aging pointlessly as they sit around without missiles.
Jon Grams
I’m not sure the Yuri Dolgorukiy-class (Project 955) can be retrofitted to accept the SS-N-23 missile system. I don’t think the liquid fueled Sineva’s could “operationally” fit into the Bulava launch tubes without a near totally remanufacturing of the submarine.
If I’m wrong here, I’d appreciate any information.
Frank Shuler
USA
A few thoughts:
- Russia tried to build thirty years old Trident I equivalent called Bulava - apparently without success. Many facts suggest Russia lost ability to build advanced nuclear missiles from scratch due to losing many crucial technologies, skilled manpower, poor quality management etc. Now Russia can produce only old Soviet era missiles like Topol-M and Sineva.
- All previous Russian SSBN classes will be withdrawn from service up to 2015-17 due to their age and poor maintenance. Currently "built" Borey-class boomers cannot be reequipped with Sineva SLBM because this is liquid fuel missile. In sum naval leg of Russian strategic triad will consist about four SSBNs now without battle-ready SLBM which means French and British naval deterrence level.
- If Russia really seeks deterrent against US nuclear arsenal now this is hopeless situation. US Navy has more than fifty attack SSNs which could easily detect and sink several Russian boomers on the patrol or destroy them in ports using nuclear SLCMs. Poor remnants of Russian Northern Fleet numbering only four major ASW warships and five SSNs lost ability to screen its boomers in so called strategic bastions.
I don't understand why Russia did not take decision to field proven Sineva missile on-board Borey-class subs after Bark project cancellation! All in all Russian authorities should seriously rethink this grim strategic situation and mature joining NATO in the near future...
Silent Hunter
On November 9, 1989 the Berlin Wall fell. This political event also marked beginning of the collapse of the Russian military. Virtually from that time forward, the Soviet (Russian by 1992) military ceased to be modernized; research and development on weapon systems ended and basic services to the troops, such as living quarters and pay, became undependable. Navy bases were more interested in having electrical power than having strategic submarines that could patrol. Nuclear research labs had no work; idling some of the greatest scientist in the world. MIGs and Sukhoi aircraft had no pilots or aviation fuel to operate. Tupolev Tu-160 bombers sat in open airfields throughout the long Russian winters without hangaring. The Russian Navy had no money to pay the shipyards for even basic services. The Russian Army had 10,000 tanks; few were combat ready. Everything just ground to a halt.
I don’t think in the history of the world such a comparable military collapse has occurred.
Due to the implosion of the old Soviet Union, the entire Russian military became obsolescent at the same time. This is the situation Vladimir Putin faced on December 31, 1998 when he became acting President of Russia. Faced with such a catastrophe, the Kremlin attempted to rebuild the Russian military “en mass”; funding every facet of the Russian military with the primary emphasis on the strategic nuclear inventory. Clearly today, trying to do too much and spreading the defense budgets so thin has resulted in most, if not all, military projects being underfunded and struggling to produce weapons in numbers needed to revitalize the Russian military. Hard political decisions will need to be made to change this. All is not lost. Today, Russia needs to priorities its military needs and make the investments necessary, in manpower and treasury, to build a new “21st Century Military” that is best suited to defend the country. Simply building a “future” military that gets you back to where you were in 1989, is a failed strategy.
Time will tell.
Frank Shuler
USA
Silent Hunter:
Nuclear weapons are both military weapons and political/prestige tools.
From a pure military point of view, maybe Russia should have built a dozen "Delta V"s in the 1990s with liquid-fueled missiles. Cheap, easy and reliable, the AK-47 of SSBNs would have been the philosophy. But fielding second-rate, non-cutting edge equipment is a confession of inferiority, even if it works just as well as the cutting edge stuff.
A large part of the point of nuclear weapons programs is to prove to that you are capable of building first-class military technology. Ask India and Pakistan. ("We are #182 in the world in literacy, infant mortality, drinking water quality, etc. But we are #8 in nuclear weapons.") Cranking out thirty-year old models doesn't do that. The Topol-M and Bulava projects were designed not just to put warheads out there, but to keep Russia at the forefront of missile development--and remind everyone of this fact. The point of the Bulava and Topol-M programs were missiles that could "defeat" a US ABM system.
The Bulava program's problems are in fact proving the opposite--that Russia can no longer design and field state-of-the-art missiles. Even the Sineva (upgraded SS-N-23 Skiff) project seems to have been severely delayed (first missiles deployed in 2007 instead of 2002). The Topol-M was successfully developed and deployed, but Russia can't seem to build more than a handful a year.
To be fair, I don't know that the US could develop and field a new, 21st century missile system in this day and age either, given funding and defense industry challenges.
johnbragg
At this point, the only American nuclear missile system anticipated in the future is a replacement for Trident. Or, at least, this is the only system being supported in the current defense budget request (fy2010). The Obama Administration included advanced R&D dollars in the budget for work on the Trident replacement and rejected the need for a new manned bomber. The US Navy Trident fleet is scheduled to receive a new interim missile, the so called D5 Life Extension (D5LE) missile that will extend the life-cycle of the current Trident D5 missile until 2040. This missile will first go to sea with the Ohio-class submarines of today and then later be fitted into a new class of American strategic nuclear submarines, bridging the gap until a full Trident replacement SLBM is delivered to the fleet sometime in the 2030 timeline. By 2040 the new fleet of submarines should be at sea, armed with the Trident replacement. It’s anticipated twelve new submarines will be build; all with nuclear reactors that will require no refueling over their lifetime.
You make a great point. Today, the Pentagon continues to buy a small number of Trident missiles each year with two goals. First, to make sure the industrial pipeline stays open and the workforce that builds this technology continues to be supported. Second, to ensure continuing innovation. The UGM-133 Trident II that goes to sea today is far more advanced that the original D5 operational with the USS Tennessee in 1990. The Pentagon invest monies with Electric Boat for the same reason. Never lose the industrial capability to build a nuclear submarine. If you do, you’ll pay the devil to get it back. Ask the Royal Navy as they try to deliver their Astute class. You just can’t take ten years off in nuclear submarine production and gain it back without pain.
Frank Shuler
USA
" The Bulava program's problems are in fact proving the opposite--that Russia can no longer design and field state-of-the-art missiles. Even the Sineva (upgraded SS-N-23 Skiff) project seems to have been severely delayed (first missiles deployed in 2007 instead of 2002). The Topol-M was successfully developed and deployed, but Russia can't seem to build more than a handful a year.
To be fair, I don't know that the US could develop and field a new, 21st century missile system in this day and age either, given funding and defense industry challenges."
Johnbragg.
I think there is a bit of exagerattion in our review of Russian capabilities in the missile field.
They have lost production capabilities, yes, but from there to the conclusion that they lost innovation capabilities in this field is a long stretch.
Russia send manned spaceships to space station in every six months and that requires a lot of precision rocket technology and quality of production.
If there is one area that the Soviet Union and Russia invested a big share of their money was the missile technology. They make navigation sattelites and that requires precision and advanced technologies.
Now they have access to more modern and high power computer systems than they had in the past.
Looking for what they have achieved in the past, in their space techonogy field, i have no doubts that Russia can overcome these difficulties in the Bulava missile development, if they invest their money and resources to that end.
Alopes:
Sending manned spaceships into orbit does not require state-of-the-art missiles. Russia has had that tech since Yuri Gagarin in 1961. Rockets fro navigation satellites don't have to worry about an Aegis cruiser trying to shoot the rocket down. If Russia wanted to equip their SSBNs with brand new SS-N-18s or Skiff SS-N-23s, even I believe that they could do so without much trouble.
But Russia is trying to build state-of-the-art missiles, meeting various requirements designed to defeat an ABM system--maneuverability, speed, stealth qualities, etc. For SLBMs, add the requirements that they fire from a launch tube without damaging the tube, and that they do so under water. Ideally, you'd like the missile to go through an ice sheet if it had to. Oh, and do all of this at once.
It's called rocket science for a reason. It's a very, very difficult engineering task/set of tasks. The Soviet Union was able to do it for a long time by devoting 15-20% of GDP to the military. Those days are over--the Russian economy is smaller than the Soviet economy by 14 republics, and the military would be ecstatic to get 5% of GDP.
Again, I am not just running down Russia here. I think that if the US wanted to build an aircraft carrier or the M1A1 Abrams or a B-2 bomber from the drawing board, I think it would be debatable if we could in peacetime.
johnbragg
[... I think that if the US wanted to build an aircraft carrier or the M1A1 Abrams or a B-2 bomber from the drawing board, I think it would be debatable if we could in peacetime...]
When was the last time America was really in “peacetime”? We’ve been at constant “war” with someone since June 24, 1948. That being said, I think you underestimate the military-industrial capability of the United States. The US is turning out a new design UAV every 18 months; straight from the drawing board to testing at Nellis to combat. Innovation is so brisk, by the time a model is in production and being delivered to the Pentagon, a far better design is in the pipeline. The uniformed military is struggling to keep up with the learning curve.
If the Pentagon has a dollar, there is a defense contractor that has an idea how to spend it.
Frank Shuler
USA
Was there another launching of Bulava at 07.45 today 09.12.2009. There was a spectacular light phenomena over the North of Norway. Se www.altaposten.no for pictures.
Indeed there was: http://russianforces.org/blog/2009/12/no_luck_for_bulava.shtml