The drama continues...

The Russian Navy will get this right; it's just going to take some time to work through the issues and there may be several different problems that will need solving. There is no real need to rush the delivery of the Bulava to the fleet.

Frank Shuler
USA

Well if you count this success as “partial success”, when stages are correctly depleted you must also count the failures as “partial failures”. Else this seems as a biased statement.

Pavel , we have to wait for information from official sources than just to believe media and unnamed source.

I feel the reporting on Bulava test has been less of an objective analysis and more of critical ( some may call biased )

technically speaking there is nothing like a partial success or partial failure , its either the test met its objective fully or was a failure for some reasons.

If the Bulava warhead has indeed failed to seperate from BUS then its a failure

But instead of quoting some news paper report claiming unnamed sources , its better to wait for a while for more detailed report or official confirmation.

Austin Joseph: I'm not sure we will see an "official confirmation." But the information about failure is solid.

Is the telemetry data available?

I still don't understand why Russia could not have upgraded one of the previous generation SLBM's instead-even a liquid fuel one. Is that because they were all built in the Ukraine? Also, the whole point of commonality with the Topol-M is lost when as the Bulava has a different primary diameter, and therefore different motors/stages. If you actually designed an SSBN that could carry the Topol-M, now THAT would be commonality. (It would also make for a very large SSBN)

Further evidence scientific and industrial base
is in crisis. Success of Bulava is critical to
support 4th generation SSBN. Real doubts as to the
viability of the SSBN arm of the triad in the long
term. D-IV only a bridge to the 4th generation.
Russian forces eventually to rely on silo based,
mobile Topol. Russia will end up with a SSBN force the size of British and French.

Pavel : Can you provide us with something which can be termed as solid evidence , besides the newspaper report ?

John Grams: the rationale for Bulava is certaintly not that all other SLBMs were built in Ukraine. Russia does manufacture liquid-fuel SLBMs to this day.

Let’s speculate for the moment that Bulava is a total, unmitigated failure and will be cancelled like Bark. What are Russia’s options? Of course, the Kremlin will accelerate the installation of the Sineva missiles in the existing Delta IV submarines (Project 667BDRM), a process that has been slow to date. What then? It can attempt to re-open a new design study for a new solid fueled missile system that will fit in the launch tubes of the existing Project 955 class. If necessary, it can bring the Yuri Dolgorukiy back to the shipyard for a conversion to support such a new type solid fueled missile; rebuild the Aleksandr Nevskiy and Vladimir Monomakh in the same way. Or, it can give up on sea-based solid fueled missile designs and decide to build a new successor to the Sineva that will require a new submarine design. The three Project 955 boats could be completed to support, perhaps, a cruise missile armament and add value to the Russian Navy. Any thoughts?

Please understand this is only an academic pursuit. As I have long stated, I believe the Bulava system will ultimately be successful and deployed. Building a SLBM system is complicated work; Russia will get this all worked out in time.

Frank Shuler
USA

I have grave doubts about the failure aspect , in worst case scenario one or two of the MIRV warhead might have missed the mark , there is no evidence to suggest it was a failure nor is there any evidence to suggest 100 % success , so we have to wait.

There have not been too many tests yet and problems were not always the same. New (Ru. SLBM) solid fuel technology will tax time and effort ... Another aspect, what is bulava's minimum range? Could the second or third stage be bypassed to avoid lofted trajectory for short range?

I find this
http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/31025

Does anybody know, is this submarines of
Project 885 Yasen (Graney), or some new designed class.

The Bureaucrats in the Russian Defense Ministry use the "Bulava" as a PR program that "everything is wonderful" with Russia's "re-armament". They use these programs to "feed" themselves.

Many have friends at the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology(Bulava and Topol-M are their creation), and not at the Makeyev Design Bureau(developed almost all the successful Soviet/Russian Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles, including Sineva). As a result attempts to "standardize" Russia's ICBMs meant abandoning the Makeyev specialists. This had nothing to do with Ukraine.

The official Russian Defense Ministry report said the following about the last Bulava test - "the training warheads entered the 'area' of the Kura Test Range". This was a simple way to lie to the public, the warheads may have actually entered the thousands of sq km of the Range, but they may have not hit the target.

The Bulava is a Black Hole which swallows Billions of Russian Roubles, and nobody can rationalize its need since it is inferior to the missiles already in service(in almost every characteristic). The best explanation is that "because Americans did it"(with solid fuel missiles, but Russia builds better liquid fuel missiles).

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080930/117314292.html

They transfered one Delta III to the Pacific. Why? Are all Delta III based in the Pacific now? Are they short on operative submarines in the Pacific?

Is this the one that maybe launched the short range SLBM-launch? Any more info about that launch?

I found this in russian;

Все задачи похода экипаж выполнил на отлично, сообщается, что подводники, которые более 30 дней сложного маршрута не поднимались на поверхность, чувствуют себя нормально.
Оценивая результаты арктического похода, командование отметило, что российские подводники подтвердили качество отечественной школы выполнения задач в арктических широтах.
На вооружении стратегической подлодки "Рязань" находятся баллистические ракеты "Синева".
В последний раз подобный переход совершила многоцелевая атомная лодка Северного флота "Томск" в 1998 году.

I think that they say : DELTA III RYZAN submarine carry new sineva missiles, which is designed for DELTA IV submarines upgrade.
Is it true, is it possibility that RYZAN submarine pass some modernization to carry these missiles like DELTA IV. In that case, I think that submarine could stay in service another 10-15 years.

Building missiles is not difficult, building reliable cheap ones is. The more stock that is depleted the more one has to replace it. Does this mean that Russian interests now require more stock and flexibility in pricing, it may mean that the complex side of this technology also relates to storage and distribution challenges. A new missile type may require additional space coverage to assist it to target. Russian constraints may be reducing the tolerance of such expenditure on these items at this time, but still making progress on tactical press coverage, reaching millions of diverse groups via the media. Final data on testing is not active until it has all been verified. Such processes require high levels of accuracy, the battlefield may not require such detail in the new battlefront. At the end of the day bulava keeps the ball moving for next mobile challenges.

No related to the issue, but related to SSBN: Ryazan had just returned from his month-long patrol in the Pacific.

I doutb very much Ryazan is carriyng Sineva missiles. the missiles is longer and diameter is bigger, that means probably whole missilesection have to be replased. How many operational years left does she have? Have not the SS-N-18 missiles proved to reliable enough? At least until Borey/Bulava missiles are ready.

"The Russian Defense Ministry said on Tuesday that the Ryazan, which was previously part of Russia's Northern Fleet, will be reassigned to the Pacific Fleet and will patrol the Pacific Ocean on a regular basis."

It more looks like the are trying moving operational Delta III submarines to the Pacific until Borey is ready. North still have the modified Delta IV class.

www.1tv.ru/news/n129112

In this link they said submarine use sineva missile.

If the Pacific Fleet is the one to get the Boreys then it makes sense to concentrate the older submarines there, ready to be phased out, while leaving the more capable Delta-IV in the Northern Fleet.

Reuters’ article stated that on October 10th, the “Tula” test fired a Sineva missile to an unprecedented Mid-Pacific equator location for the first time not using the Kura testing ground on the Kamchatka Peninsula. I wonder if this is just “saber rattling” or is there a real purpose to this test?

Also, I’m beginning to wonder about the Sineva missile program in general. If the Delta III class submarine, the “Ryzan” also carries the Sineva as reported, is the Sineva really a missile at all? Or, is the “Sineva Project” simply a re-manufacturing of the existing SS-N-23 and the SS-N-18 missiles using only Russian made components? So far only the “Tula” and the “Ryzan” have been publicly stated to carry the Sineva. It has been widely reported, even Project 667BDRM (Delta IV) boats that have been recently modernized have not been outfitted with the “new” Sineva. Any thoughts?

Frank Shuler
USA

The Tula Project 667 launched an RSM-54 Sineva from the Barents sea.
http://arms-expo.ru/site.xp/049057054048124052052056051.html