The flight test of the Bulava missile, carried out on October 25, 2006, ended in failure shortly after the launch. The launch was conducted at 17:05 MSK (13:05 UTC) from the Dmitry Donskoy submarine of the Northern Fleet deployed in the White Sea toward the Kura test site in Kamchatka.
This was the fourth full-scale flight test of the missile and the second failure in a row. The previous launch, on September 7, 2006, failed because of the malfunction of the first stage at the time of ignition. The cause of today's failure is unknown. According to the early reports, the missile was destroyed by the self-destruct mechanism after it veered off course shortly after the launch.
The book
Comments
At least self destruction worked this time :-)
I think there is a little concern for Russian Navy after this 2nd test failure. Bulava is badly needed for Russian Navy to keep it operational. Causes should be identified and corrected soon.
Bad, bad, very bad news!! If it is not promptly fixed, the Navy will run empty.
Once the bane of Western Navies, the current Russian Navy is quickly evolving into the "gang who can't shoot straight." If the Russian government can't adequately support an ocean-going fleet, then perhaps it should adopt a more realistic maritime policy. . .ie coastal defense.
Not great news; however not necessarily bad news either. It does seem an aggressive testing schedule is being maintained and, from that, problems will be solved. I think the Bulava will be a successful weapon but the uneven development work on the “total system” (missile and submarine) may mean the “Rs. Yuriy Dolgorukiy” initially goes to sea without her armament. Russia will get this right.
Frank Shuler
USA
I agree with you Frank. The Bulava is a "must be" for the Navy. However this implies overcosts and delays.
In the meantime Dolphins (Delta-IV)+ Sineva will do the job.
The Russian Navy has followed a logical path. The first need was to develop a totally Russian manufactured SS-N-23 missile for the Delta IV fleet. This weapon was developed, successfully tested, and certified in a very aggressive procurement program. In addition, new warheads to equip the “Sineva” missile were developed and deployed. At the same time, Russia began a naval construction program geared at modernizing and refueling the Delta IVs. This program has been a total success. Understand, Soviet (Russian) warships have gone into dry-dock for refurbishing never to return. Never! The plan to rebuild the Project 667BDRM, “Dolphins” has been steady and apparently on budget. Next to come is the development of a future, replacement submarine for the Russian Navy, the Project 955 Borey-Class, with the Rs. Yuriy Dolgorukiy in the lead. The Bulava missile is an ambitious program that has been relatively successful in testing, until recently. I bet the issue is not a design glitch but a manufacturing problem. Given Russian’s limited naval resources, the scope of accomplishment here is impressive.
Frank Shuler
USA
The Russian Fleet has never been in worse shape.
so how long did the missile fly ? kommersant speaks of 200 seconds - i believed a solid missile burns out at this time. if it really did fly so long, you could call this a partial success.
Hi, I doubt also the 200 seconds. Here is a flight profile of the Minuteman ICBM.
http://www.geocities.com/minuteman_missile/images/MM_flight_profile.gif
All is done within 200 seconds.
Has somebody a flight profile of the Bulava, at which time of the flight what happens?
Martin
According RIA Novosti, flied by almost 3 minutes. In such a case, it should be classified as a “partial succes” or “partial failure”.
So if that with the 3 Minutes (200 secs)is true, I guess the third stage failed somehow. So the first two stages worked as wanted, a partial success would be the write term as Kolokol said.
Martin, we should be more prudent. It’s worth to wait for technical explanations.
Hi to all,
in my oppinion, one thing we all forget here is how the things are being done on free market. Let me remind you on how Bulava pushed out Bark: MITT said that oposing to the unfinished, untested, with many uncertainties, rocket Bark, they have all but finished, reliable, tested rocket, which entering to service is just the matter of some finall make-up details. Then, when they finally convinced the goverment, they may have(this is just an oppinion!) tested "succesfully" who knows what under who knows what conditions. We all know that there is a very big gap between something fired on the test-site and entering into service. In other words, they needed to fire something the first 2 times, say that it is a success to ensure further funding and state devotion to the project and only then focus on the real problems and solving them which might be what we are seing in these last two tests. Similar thing happened in many other projects(the latest and most famous being the USA AMD and Mr. Rumesfeld rushing it into "service" to satisfy some "political" and financial goals). I think this thing is nothing strange, and it is regular form which is maybe a bit strange for Russia, but certainly the way things are being done. If the pressure gets too high, I am sure that the MITT will then conduct another "succesfull" test to calm down the goverment and so on untill the rocket is really finished and deployable. I also think that this rocket has no alternative for Russia and should remain a priority, and I have no doubts that it will eventually be finished. We just have to wait.
Interfax-AVN reported that the problem was with the telemetry system on the missile which means it was a software era or a hardware problem with the guidance electronics themselves, the 3 stages themselves burned okay. A telemetry problem is arguably harder to solve than just a rocket problem.
hmm, i don't understand this. I guessed the telemetry and guidance was from the topol-m. And the topol-m seems to be quite reliable.
"I guessed the telemetry and guidance was from the topol-m"
Very different :-)))
http://www.npoa.ru/
http://www.npcap.ru/
I'm not sure we can fully trust the reports about 200 seconds or the telemetry. Russian sources are usually not quite reliable.
Could it be that some kind of electronic interference from space by U.S., to abort the progress of Bulava, has caused these failures?. The U.S. just can't be trusted to reamain silent. But if the U.S. could penetrate the electronic shield then it should be considerably more alarming for Russia than a failure of its own guidance system. After 2 resounding successes these failures make one smell a rat!
KA Sharma:
I think you're on to something here! I have long suspected the Hubble Telescope is such a space-based weapon. The Americans are so crafty at times. NASA’s decision today to mount a repair mission to Hubble, against all practical odds, only reinforces my suspicions. Obviously, they intend on updating the surveillance sensors and installing additional pulse weapons. Not only is the entire Bulava program at risk but so is Topol-M. These are dangerous times my friend.
Frank Shuler
USA
I think both Russia & US has means and the ability to find out if the other side had sabotaged the mission sooner or later.
The failure of Bulava must be attributed to some technical issue Must be Stage Seperation or some other issue , They would have to sit down and find out the technical glitches leading to failure,
With the experience that the Russians have in Rocketery and the Importance of Bulava program to strategic defence of Russia , They will bounce back very soon with sucessful flight.
Frank -
Thanks for the pointer towards Hubble telescope. Even I suspected the same. Russia must find out and very soon too. It may be a 'blessing in disguise' as it would enable Russia to act sooner than later. However no panic need be generated until it is proved with reasonable surety.
Hello,
about Hubble: this telescope has an inclination of its orbit of 28°, Russia starts somewhere above 50°N, so alone from that facts it makes absolutely no sense to relate the HST to any spionage or spacewar activities against Russia. Hubble will never raise above the horizon in Russia.
I don´t believe in any of these conspiracy theories,
but for those who do so:
I would look for NROL-satellites launched by an Delta IV Heavy or the Titan IVB on a polar orbit. There are hobby astronomers looking for those satellites. So get the orbit date from them and look if there was one above the Bulava launch site at the right time.
With this site you can´t go back, but for the future you can have a look on it:
http://www.heavens-above.com/
HST orbit:
http://www.heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=20580
Martin
Martin:
KA Sharma:
This only proves the sophistication of American space weapons. Obviously, the Hubble Space Telescope has an over-the-horizon targeting ability!!! (big smile) Sarcasm aside, I think my original premise is probably correct, a manufacturing glitch.
Frank Shuler
USA
Just to get it right now: The first two stages fired correctly, while during the firing of the third stage the guidance system, which is diffrent from the Topol-M (as "Gradient" wrote"), failed through a soft- or hardware error? Is this correct?
Martin
Martin: In fact, we don't really know anything about the failure. I would wait for more information.
Frank & Martin:
Is the Bulava, especially being MIRVed, guided by "Glonass" or self guided? If it is through the GPS, then electronic interference or jamming is possible, in which case, Russia should be able to suspect at once, I guess.
I accept I might be entirely wrong ; but is there a "deafening" silence from U.S. which is so uncharacteristic?
KA Sharma:
As I mentioned to Ozzy on a previous post, while it seems somewhat surreal at times, the average American is no more interested in Russian nuclear weapons’ development than we are of the French. It's not so much silence as indifference. This is just a non-issue for the United States. The US Government doesn’t care, the US Press doesn’t care, and therefore the American citizenry doesn’t care. The Cold War is indeed over; something, I think, is sometimes better understood in America than Russia. The Kremlin will build a collection of modern weapons and systems to support their national defense, as it should do. Russia and America will be allies on some issues and adversaries on others; this is just the way it is.
Frank Shuler
USA
KA Sharma:
Definitively Russia will not guide its warheads using GPS. It’s just illogical to build a strategic deterrence system trusting in outside guidance means. It would be Glonass aided and/or with stellar references.
By the way in early tests this may not be so important. Mostly when the failure seems to be in the final throwing stage.
Kolokol:
Isn't Glonass a global position satellite system? And, if not, what exactly is its function? Thanks.
Frank Shuler
USA
Sorry, when I claimed "GPS", it means NAVSTAR.
Kolokol-
When I wrote my posting dt. 3rd Nov., I referred only to "Glonass" as the GPS, never to the western system. It is perhaps not yet complete with all satellites. But partially so already. Since it is also satellite based, it is possible to interfere with these satellites' functioning! However if commands can be given to "Bulava" through "Glonass" then what sort of shield is the Bulava supposed to possess? Isn't it logical that Topol M and Bulava must be self guided in order to prevent any electro-magnetic waves from penetrating the shield? However since mid-course manouevering is possible on topol m and Bulava it seems more complex than just a physical shield.
The guidance of the Bulava is inertial + stellar according to astronautix.com , so no external source for guidance is needed as in all ICBM/SLBM after the first generation ones.
I just heart from Frank that the US will use GPS for their prompt global strike stuff and the modernized W76 warhead, if I understood right.
Gentlemen-
I think mid-course manouevering of a missile warhead is not possible with stellar or inertial guidance simply because contact with missile has to be established to change its destination or parameters and this is possible only through electronic commands or lasers. Inertial or stellar guidance helps only to home in to the preset target and cannot be changed mid-course.
Martin:
KA Sharma:
Indeed the US Press (Aviation Week & Space Technology) and other US Government sources have commented on the “rebuilt and enhanced” W76 that will have GPS accuracy. However, I need to watch my words. I think the jest of the articles is that the new W76 will be rebuilt with greater shielding and have the ability to penetrate ground targets while being downloaded to 60kts vs. today’s 100kts nuclear warhead. The existing W76 today is optimized for airburst. New fuses and this remanufacturing will make the “new W76” a capable hard target weapon. I think (just my thinking) the GPS comments were referring to the ability to check navigation from the RV prior to launch and have accuracy measured in only meters on target. No mid-course correction is possible. However, the Global Strike Initiative is suppose to have such GPS terminal guidance. The Lockheed contractors that are supporting both programs are “very excited” by the test results. Interestingly, it seems this policy has been initiated from the Trident manufacturer (Lockheed) and not from the US Government. In other words, it’s not the Pentagon saying we need to have GPS accuracy on these systems but Lockheed saying to the Pentagon, “So, if we could build GPS accuracy in the systems, would you be interested?” The Pentagon is interested.
Frank Shuler
USA
Mid-course manoeuvres might be executed and the path is tracked via stellar reference. Honestly, I am not completely sure, but I think post-boost vehicles operate in such a way. GPS guide, if used should aid the re-entry-vehicle (namely JUST the warhead) in its terminal phase.
More info should be welcomed.
As far as I understand, GPS or Glonass would work at the warhead deployment stage. The signal would not be able to get to the warheads during re-entry. Besides, as it turns out, re-entry errors are relatively small.
I mean that Glonass aid during the final “atmospheric” path. Not during the “hot” and blind re-entry to the atmosphere. Another question. I assumed the warheads delivery is made near the apogee of the trajectory. If this is the case, how can help Glonass? Pitch and jaws at above 6 km/s overruns GPS aided corrections. Or not?
Nov 9 2006 3:17PM
Intercontinental ballistic missile successfully hits target at training range
MOSCOW. Nov 9 (Interfax-AVN) - An RS-18 strategic missile launched by the Space Forces on Thursday successfully hit a target at a missile training range at 3:00 p.m. Moscow time, a source in the Space Forces' information and public relations department told Interfax-AVN.
"Telemetric information showed that the missile flight was regular. The dummy warhead hit the target at the Kura missile training range in Kamchatka," service spokesman Alexei Kuznetsov said.
He said the missile was launched under a program to extend the service life of RS-18 (Stiletto) missiles.
France tested its new M-51 SLBM for the first time last thursday, a comparable system to the Bulava. So lets see which missile will be deployed first.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/France_Tests_Ballistic_Missile_For_Nuclear_Deployment_999.html