Russia conducted another test launch of the Bulava missile from the Dmitry Donskoy submarine early morning on December 9, 2009. The is no official information about the launch (or even a confirmation of the fact that it took place), but the word is that this time it was the third stage that malfunctioned.
The launch apparently created quite a stir in Norway, where people were able to see some spectacular views of the event. There is a video as well.
It was the twelfth test launch of the missile and third failure in a row. Previous test took place on July 15th, 2009. In the beginning of November Dmitry Donskoy went to sea with a missile on board, but the test was apparently cancelled at the last minute.
Ironically, Sevmash confirmed today that it will start construction of a fourth submarine of the Project 955 class on December 22, 2009, as it was reported earlier.
UPDATE 12/10/09: Jonathan McDowell comments on the spiral.
The book
Comments
Some are claiming/theorising it was this Proton-M rocket: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russian_ProtonM_Carrier_Rocket_Launch_Postponed_24_Hours.html
No, it was Bulava. Besides, if it were a Proton launch, we would have some information - there is nothing there to hide.
CNN Reports that Russian Defence Ministry denies any missile launch in the area which is claimed to be source of strange light seen there
i wonder why Russia doesn't go with Sineva missile instead. I heard it is one of the best in the world: with regards to the balance between energy and mass. The relationship of its mass to throw weight and range is 25-30 percent more than the American Trident I and II. It can carry 10 100kg warheads, it has more protection against electro-magnetic pulse and carries more missile defense penetration aids. The combined Malakhit-3 astro- and satellite navigation system allows it to destroy a target with an accuracy of 500 meters.
Is it because it is liquid propellant or the new submarines (Borei) Russia is building which fits only with Bulava, Or what?
Russian MOD confirmed that it was a failed Bulava test.
~~~
From Interfax:
"It has been determined in analyzing the launch that the missile's first two stages performed as planned, but there was a technical malfunction at the next, the third, phase of the trajectory," the ministry said in a statement on Thursday.
The missile was launched from an underwater position, the ministry said. "Control data show that the third stage's engine worked unsteadily. A state commission is looking into the reasons behind the technical malfunction," it said.
~~~~~
Also see: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20091210/157190306.html
As I understand, the main problem with R-29RM (Sineva) is that it is a liquid-fuel missile. Submariners don't really like that - they were pushing for solid-propellant missiles since at least the early 1980s.
The big problem is the submarine issue, there will soon be 4 boats designed to take this weapon in various stages with the first of class already already on sea trials. The submarines were built around this missile and it would now be both expensive and time consuming to rebuild them (and it would likely amount to that) to take a missile that the Russian's regard as being in its final incarnation.
The ironic thing is that the Bulava only exists because of the failure of the Bark programme.
I'm starting to wonder if the SSN-20/Sturgeon, as the only other solid-fueled SLBM in soviet/russian service ever really worked as advertised, considering the immense problems Russia seems to have with Bulava, but also had with similar projects like SSN-X-28, SSN-17/Snipe or RT-15M.
From my point of view, the main problem with the Sineva is not that it's liquid-fueled - but that it's HYPERGOLIC liquid propellants, which means that a missile leaking fuel and oxidiser (e.g. due to corrosion or hydraulic shock induced by some sort of collision or nearby explosion or because of thermal expansion etc.) will inevitably result in an unquenchable fire in the missile compartment. This is what happened to the Yankee-I K-219 (with 16 R-27/SSN-6/Serb missiles) in 1986 and, according to my interpretation, was also the most likely cause of the loss of the Golf-II-class K-129 (with 3 R-21/SSN-5 missiles). To a certain extent, this also applies to the sinking of the K-141 Kursk ('hypergolic' reaction of hydrogen peroxide leaking from a 65cm-topedo).
With this in mind, the safety record of all Delta-classes (and even all other soviet/russian SSBNs with that general type of missile technology) is in fact quite astonishing.
A little addition to my last comment:
I forgot to mention that the liquid fuels used in the Sineva etc. additionally have the nasty characteristics of being rather toxic and corrosive (both particularly undesirable attributes in case of submarines with a limited supply of breathable air, if you ask me)...
“I'm starting to wonder if the SSN-20/Sturgeon, as the only other solid-fueled SLBM in soviet/russian service ever really worked as advertised, considering the immense problems Russia seems to have with Bulava, but also had with similar projects like SSN-X-28, SSN-17/Snipe or RT-15M.
From my point of view, the main problem with the Sineva is not that it's liquid-fueled - but that it's HYPERGOLIC liquid propellants, which means that a missile leaking fuel and oxidiser (e.g. due to corrosion or hydraulic shock induced by some sort of collision or nearby explosion or because of thermal expansion etc.) will inevitably result in an unquenchable fire in the missile compartment. This is what happened to the Yankee-I K-219 (with 16 R-27/SSN-6/Serb missiles) in 1986 and, according to my interpretation, was also the most likely cause of the loss of the Golf-II-class K-129 (with 3 R-21/SSN-5 missiles). To a certain extent, this also applies to the sinking of the K-141 Kursk ('hypergolic' reaction of hydrogen peroxide leaking from a 65cm-topedo).
With this in mind, the safety record of all Delta-classes (and even all other soviet/russian SSBNs with that general type of missile technology) is in fact quite astonishing.”
[Jochen Schischka] [December 11, 2009] [#]
It was reported that the Soviet Navy had indeed development problems with the SS-N-20, while concerning the SS-N-17 Snipe such reports are pretty hard to find. But one could concur that, considering that the Snipe was only intended more or less as an interim solution until the Sturgeons saw deployment and that it armed only the lone Yankee II conversion, it probably had its share of problems too. I wouldn’t go in considering HYPERGOLIC liquid propellants as the problem with Bulava. A more thorough view into Bulava’s misfortunes will clearly indicate that to attribute these to liquid fuelling is naive at best.
It is interesting to note your reference to both K-219 and Kursk incidents though. And the mentioning of what exposure of Hydrogen Peroxide or HTP in Kursk’s case could cause in case of hydraulic shock caused by collisions or nearby explosions e.g. Both submarines experienced both collisions and –in case of Kursk- nearby explosion.
The point is that HTP is pretty safe if you’re not collided or fired upon by another vessel.