Vladimir Monomakh, the third ballistic missile submarine of the Project 955 class, is expected to conduct a salvo launch of two Bulava missiles in June 2016. The first launch, in November 2015, was not successful - one of the missiles was reported to malfunction.
In fact, according to a recent report Izvestia, which quotes its sources, the second missile failed as well - the missile self-destructed at some point after launch. After the failure all missiles were reportedly removed from the submarine and sent to the Votkinsk plant for a check-up. Izvestia is hardly the most reliable sources, but there is no particular reason not to believe this report. The ministry of defense, of course, reported complete success at the time, but that appears to be incorrect.
UPDATE 9/28/16: In fact, it appears that the destruction of the second missile was deliberate and did not indicate a failure. This is what happened in the September 2016 salvo launch.
The book
Comments
The Izvestia article seemed so incoherent that I would hardly call it reliable. It contradicts MOD official claims. It claims to have quoted a source, but gave none.
At this point, we have always assumed the issues with Bulava were in manufacturing. However, more than enough time has gone by to correct production and assembly errors. Do we now begin to think there are design flaws with the missile? Is my criticism too early in this process? Does Bulava just need more time to work out the “issues” or is there a real problem here?
Frank Shuler
USA
" named K-407 "Novomoskovsk", commanded by Captain 2nd rank Sergei Yegorov in August 1991.
That K-407 launch really shook the planet.. 25 years ago .."
Something tells me that this launch is much more than just 2 bulava missile launch .. details have not come out now.. if that is true .. then it will really be unsettling event in world politics..
This is standard hype in Russian press. Don't buy it. It would be extremely stupid to repeat that massive salvo launch.
For some reason I have to create a new password every time I want to leave a comment. Why would a salvo test be so stupid? Shouldn't they have close to 100 Yars missile systems by the end of this year?
Sorry to hear about the password - let me know if it persists. I would guess it's a cookies problem in your browser.
As for the salvo, there is no point in launching all missiles. And it's quite expensive.
Actually we are English using people lot of difficulty in Russian websites..
Topic change. Thanks for the Update Pavel.It is expensive I agree.
Ther are few points in this.
Every year press data reveals about 10 ICBM production to calm the washington INF treaty hawks. This salvo launch completely negate the U,S think tanks about their estimation of Russian production.
Recently Bulava put into large scale production. It would proof the scale of production (November: 2 missiles tested were from full scale production hence lot of defects). RS-26 also put into production.
Well I only read media so I cannot be sure. No one is sure about the scale of Russ production.
Question is why Russia is firing on all cylinders .These missiles are extremely costly yet production is in full gear. These missiles cannot be used in conventional syria ukraine conflicts.
Vladimir Monomakh in Gadzhiyevo base.
The photo report of March 12, 2016:
http://мультимедиа.минобороны.рф/multimedia/photo/gallery.htm?id=28427@cmsPhotoGallery
@ Frank Shuler
This is a load of BS and of course, the author of this website provides absolutely no proof. Pure speculations on everything and it is pretty pathetic. Here is the problem - The Izvestia article is incoherent as mentioned before, and it provides no sources or any data to back up. Then the author admits that Izvestia is a poor source. But then when the MoD provides a video showing the launches and talk of it, for some reason, we are lead to believe that the izvestia article is true just because the author states:
"but there is no particular reason not to believe this report"
and
"reported complete success at the time, but that appears to be incorrect."
So, author, what exactly is the reason to believe a two bit media outlet like izvestia that provides nothing (neither do yourself) over the MoD that provides even a video of the launches? Because you said so and that is it?
As well, just a note, please start using not only real sources, but also provide some sort of linkage to your sources for all other data. Otherwise, makes yourself look like a two bit journalist.
sepheronx: First of all, I would appreciate it if you could watch your language and tone. That would help make discussion better for everyone.
As for the substance, I guess I could have been more careful with saying "no particular reason not to believe", but the truth is that it is possible that the report is correct. The video published by the MoD shows the first 30 seconds of so of the flight and it appears that the problems may have occurred later. Unfortunately, the MoD is not a very reliable source either, so I cannot take their statement about a "fully successful launch" at face value. One has to rely on all available sources, whether they are "linkable" or not. Readers, of course, are free to make their own judgements.