On September 6, 2013 Aleksandr Nevskiy submarine of the Project 955 class conducted a launch of a Bulava SLBM. The missile successfully left the launch tube, but failed on the second minute of the flight "due to a malfunction in its onboard system," according to a representative of the ministry of defense. The submarine was deployed in the White Sea and the missile was expected to reach the Kura test site in Kamchatka.
The launch was part of the acceptance trials of Aleksandr Nevskiy and the first launch of Bulava from that submarine. The test was the first of the two that Aleksandr Nevskiy was expected to conduct before being accepted for service on 15 November 2013. However, further tests of Bulava and the Aleksandr Nevskiy and Vladimir Monomakh trials have been now suspended and the minister of defense ordered five more "practical tests" of the missile. In any event, the submarine were not expected to receive missiles for some time. The lead submarine of the Project 955, Yuri Dolgorukiy, which is about to join the Northern Fleet, was not expected to have missiles on board until at least January 2014.
It is unclear how this failure will affect the Project 955 submarine deployment plans. It appears to be a serious setback for the Bulava program, though. It is the 20th test of Bulava and the first failure of the missile after a series of seven successful launches, which followed a string of failures and partial successes.
Previous Bulava test was a salvo launch of two missiles from Yuri Dolgorukiy submarine in December 2011.
UPDATE 09/09/2013: According to Kommersant, the launch took place at 9:20 MSK (05:20 UTC). Since the goal of the launch was to test the submarine, rather than the missile, the latter did not carry telemetry equipment. The missile was one of the first serially produced missiles. It was reported earlier that the launch would involve a test of the command and control system and indeed the launch order was transmitted to the submarine from the Command Center of the General Staff.
The book
Comments
fxxxing situation.. I think it is second coming of R-39... It seems to me similar situation of R-39. (many failure, borey≒akula's long period of blank)
sorry for my bad english..
Hello,
So is this "malfunction in its onboard system" a minor glitch or a big deal? I n other word is this failure similar in seriousness to the previous series of failures(that was put behind after another serious of 7 successes)?
Thank you
After 7 successful launch there is 1 failure when launched from a new platform of the same class then its annoying but not serious.
Time to put stringent QC/QA in place considering Bulava has over 600 plus subcontractors doing the work and randomly keep batch testing the missile for reliability in the future.
They're to do 5 more tests of Bulava now:
http://flotprom.ru/news/?ELEMENT_ID=151944
It's probably more of the same quality problems. Truth be told there is a major shortage of qualified labor, and given the low paychecks, and few career growth opportunities it's hardly surprising. The problem isn't isolated to the plant in question but persists industry wide. Realistically the only enterprises who have dodged this problem successfully are export-oriented manufacturers that have successfully adapted to operating under market conditions, and consequently are able to attract younger workers. They will work the Bulava over and over again, but ultimate success is questionable. After all this failure comes after 7 successful launches. Now they want a test program of 5 more launches. Even if all 5 are successful this won't guarantee anything.
"According to Kommersant, the launch took place at 9:20 MSK (05:20 UTC). Since the goal of the launch was to test the submarine, rather than the missile, the latter did not carry telemetry equipment. The missile was one of the first serially produced missiles. It was reported earlier that the launch would involve a test of the command and control system and indeed the launch order was transmitted to the submarine from the Command Center of the General Staff."
So does this mean it's not really a failure?? And the failure was kind of expected before the launch because it's a very old version of the missile, and the main focus was on the platform??
Forget this piece of junk already and go with the R-29RMU Sineva... The R-29 is superior to Bulava in almost every way. I don't understand why they keep beating this dead horse into the ground. What a massive waste of resources.
This missile has been produced before introducing new quality control system on 2011, am I right?
We don't know exactly when this particular missile was produced, but I would guess it was after the introduction of stringent quality control measures. So, it was supposed to work.
Jon - Sineva won't fit in tubes meant for a Bulava.
Borei/Dolgorukiy's are 43 ft high and the tubes are sized for a missile that has an 83 in diameter. Sineva missiles are ~48 feet high with a 74 in diameter.
The diameter difference is not that big of a deal - you can do that with a liner but the difference in height would require a pretty complex rebuild of the Borei/Dolgorukiy class boats. Adding that might height to the superstructure would impact stability (shift's center of gravity) and survivability (boat is noisier and potentially slower).
Keith - I see. I didn't realize there was a height issue. That is most unfortunate. I think it would have been better to pursue a liquid fuel design that would fit in the Borei. Russia excels at storable liquid propellant missiles, not so much with solid.
Yes - the designers got a little carried away trying to match the US D5 (43 ft high, 83" diameter, solid fuel).
Although no storable liquid can come anywhere close to the length a solid rocket motor lasts - solids are good for 20 - 30 years depending on fuel type. Some have been shot that were even older than that!
I thought it was the other way around - once you learn how to keep corrosion away from the key elements, liquid-fuel missiles last very much forever (see SS-19). Solid motors develop cracks and age less gracefully.
Not sure about the SS-19 - are they kept filled the entire time? Are the motors cases reconditioned during depot maintenance? Maybe more importantly - how long can the motors be left in the silo until they have to be pulled out and worked on? Pulling out missiles is expensive and time consuming - the more it can be avoided the better.
Solid rocket motors are mixed and cured and then essentially left alone for their entire life. The minuteman III has not made new motor cases since the 1970's (1973 I think but am not sure) but has been refueled - when the fuel gets too old and they wash it out and pour new fuel in.
US Navy doesn't do this - when a D5 motor gets too old it is destroyed but the D5 motors themselves last 25+ years (I don't think they are old enough to know how long they will last yet). US Missile Defense agency still uses US Navy C4 boost motors in tests which are 30+ years old.
As I understand, SS-19 and others just sit in a silo for 30+ years. I don't think they are pulled out for maintenance.
Someone in here pointed out that Russians have bad record with solid propelled rockets. And while this is true of the current sea-launched version, I don't recall Topol or Topol-M or even the new MIRV'ed Topol to have had so many problems. Am I wrong?
Topol-M didn't have many problems, if I remember correctly. Solid-propellant SLBMs are different for some reason. R-39 had its share of failures - http://russianforces.org/blog/2009/01/r-39_flight_test_program.shtml
Regarding the Minuteman 3 motor "upgrade," the purpose was ostensibly to use a less toxic, more environmentally friendly solid propellant. Supposedly the result has been a significant reduction in range. Anyway, goes to show that solid fuel also has toxicity issues- not just storable liquids like N202/UDMH.
I'm not sure Minuteman III upgrade has anything to do with toxicity of the fuel. Why would anyone care about it when the missile is in silo? And if it ever leaves a silo, toxicity would be the least of problems.
Jon Grams
What constitutes a “significant reduction in range” on the rebuilt Minuteman III ICBM? Just curious.
Frank Shuler
USA
Pavel and Frank:
To answer both your questions:
FY99 Annual Report
MINUTEMAN III GRP PHASE I
"The range performance of the Propulsion Replacement Program-modified Minuteman III is expected to suffice for full effectiveness against its current target set. However, the requirement to use environmentally acceptable materials has increased Propulsion Replacement Program stage weights and slightly reduced the total propellant volume. These factors indicate a reduction in overall range performance. The range issue requires further attention to ensure that it does not worsen."