Bulava ballistic missile test-yet another failure

[Kane Starkiller]

LINK

Test of Russian ballistic missile fails

By MIKE ECKEL, Associated Press Writer Mike Eckel, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 17 mins ago

MOSCOW – Russia's latest test of its advanced submarine-launched ballistic missile Bulava has failed, with the missile self-destructing, the Defense Ministry said Thursday — another setback for the nation's efforts to upgrade its aging arsenal.

The failure was the seventh in 11 test launches for the Bulava, and could have consequences for Russia's top missile designers and missile force commanders.

The Defense Ministry said in a statement that the missile was fired Wednesday from the submarine Dmitry Donskoi, but its first-stage malfunctioned and the weapon self-destructed.

No other information was released.

Russian forces earlier this week conducted two successful tests of another less-advanced missile, the Sineva. Military analysts, however, had been closely watching for the latest, long-promised test of the Bulava.

Defense Ministry officials had suggested a test was likely on Wednesday. However, there was no announcement of any sort that day, stoking speculation that the missile had again failed.

"Another failure would certainly provoke a serious soul searching in Russia," Pavel Podvig, a well-known analyst of Russia's missile forces, wrote in his blog on Wednesday. "It is probably too late to shut the program down, but the fact that the industry is not able to get the missile to fly ... is quite worrying."

Despite the failures, Russian leaders have boasted about the Bulava's capability to penetrate missile defenses and described it as a key part of the military's future nuclear arsenal.

Military commentator Alexander Golts said the failure was due to the fact that top government and military leaders were rushing to upgrade the aging-Soviet arsenal to keep up with the U.S.' technological advances.

He said missile designers skipped crucial steps in the testing process, such as running tests on land, instead of going straight to maritime conditions.

He also noted that the Bulava is the first missile to be designed and manufactured in post-Soviet Russia. That means that many of the research institutes and scientists who worked closely under the Soviet military industrial complex have withered away, for lack of government funding.

"The system disappeared, and they've had to build the system from scratch, and therefore serious failures," he said.

Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, who is overseeing efforts to upgrade some of Russia's military capabilities, was quoted last month as saying that the Bulava would have to undergo many more tests before being commissioned into use.

Ivanov also blamed the failures on manufacturing flaws, saying that it's difficult to control the quality of all parts supplied by the 650 subcontractors involved.

(This version CORRECTS RECASTS throughout to ADD more details, background; UPGRADES attribution throughout; corrects number of failures and tests; ADDS byline.)

Looks like quality control really went to hell after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reportedly the failure was in first stage while the last time it was the third stage. Interesting they also tested two Sineva missiles at the same time. A preemptive attempt to soften the blow from the feared failure of the Bulava test?

[MKSheppard]

So.......I bet the russians feel like idiots for spending so much on their Bulava series, when they could just have spent the same amount of money on Tu-160 production

[Simon_Jester]

Looks like quality control really went to hell after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reportedly the failure was in first stage while the last time it was the third stage.

It wasn't all that stellar before, either; look what happened to their moon rocket program.

[Vympel]

So.......I bet the russians feel like idiots for spending so much on their Bulava series, when they could just have spent the same amount of money on Tu-160 production

But then they'd have no maritime-based nuclear deterrent when the Delta IVs are gone.

What they should feel like idiots for is cancelling the SS-NX-28 Bark because of the (fewer) failures it had, which necessitated a complete redesign of the Pr. 935 to the Pr. 955, creating a huge delay and sealing the fate of the Typhoon SSBNs, now that Bulava is doing no better.

It wasn't all that stellar before, either; look what happened to their moon rocket program.

I don't see how that follows. The Soviets conducted huge numbers of tests of their SLBMs to make sure they'd work. After the Cold War was done IIRC one Typhoon SSBN ripple fired all of its SLBMs to destroy them, they all successfully launched / didn't fail / self destruct. And former Soviet / Russian space rockets have a pretty good record.

[MKSheppard]

But then they'd have no maritime-based nuclear deterrent when the Delta IVs are gone.

Which was never that hot to begin with. Even during the Cold War; a significant portion of their SSBN fleet was always tied up at the piers. A Tu-95/Tu-160 dispersed somewhere amongst the 11 billion PVO fields is more survivable than a Typhoon sitting at a dock tied up, it's reactor cold.

[Vympel]

Which was never that hot to begin with. Even during the Cold War; a significant portion of their SSBN fleet was always tied up at the piers. A Tu-95/Tu-160 dispersed somewhere amongst the 11 billion PVO fields is more survivable than a Typhoon sitting at a dock tied up, it's reactor cold.

If we're going to assume that Tu-160s and Tu-95MS bombers are going to dispersed when normally they weren't, why not assume that more than the usual amount of subs will go to sea?

[K. A. Pital]

Yup, I don't see how lower submarine patrol intensity means that you have to stop making submarines. The program of the Russian Navy is to use 4 main submarine classes - 2 SSNs, 2 SSBNs, kinda like everyone else, thus reducing the rampant "class runaway" problem that existed in the Soviet Navy with dozens of various classes in operation simultaneously.

Lower intensity means you have to increase intensity of patrols.

Tu-160s are just as easily seen from a satellite, and their transfer to dispersal airfields seems to be a thing of the past today. We had several hardened points prepared just for them, but after the downfall, I'm not sure we could do so at all. A Tu-160 cannot really land at any PVO field either, it's damn heavy and huge.

[Lord of the Abyss]

It wasn't all that stellar before, either; look what happened to their moon rocket program.

< snip >

And former Soviet / Russian space rockets have a pretty good record.

I seem to recall that they had a lot of failures with their moon program and space program in general ( like their N-1 moon rockets, which all blew up in flight ). Mostly covered up at the time, naturally. They were just willing to push on regardless.

[Vympel]

Yup, I don't see how lower submarine patrol intensity means that you have to stop making submarines. The program of the Russian Navy is to use 4 main submarine classes - 2 SSNs, 2 SSBNs, kinda like everyone else, thus reducing the rampant "class runaway" problem that existed in the Soviet Navy with dozens of various classes in operation simultaneously.

Lower intensity means you have to increase intensity of patrols.

Tu-160s are just as easily seen from a satellite, and their transfer to dispersal airfields seems to be a thing of the past today. We had several hardened points prepared just for them, but after the downfall, I'm not sure we could do so at all. A Tu-160 cannot really land at any PVO field either, it's damn heavy and huge.

Well it should still be possible, the Tu-160 does come with a whole host of specialised maintenance vehicles so that it can deploy anywhere (they are apparently noisy as all fuck though, whereas US strategic bomber airfields have them all fixed on site and underground to alleviate similar noise problems, or so I read), but yeah practically it's simply not done.

[K. A. Pital]

I seem to recall that they had a lot of failures with their moon program and space program in general

Rocket failure rate for the most routine launched families of rocket was 0,07 (or 7%) on the average. The Proton and the R-7/Soyuz families of boosters have 0,96 and 0,93 reliability rates respectively (for all of the family), and the failures mostly come from the early years. That mirrors the USA figures. Atlas family had a 0,95 reliability, Titan family - 0,89, Delta family - 0,95.

[Void]

But then they'd have no maritime-based nuclear deterrent when the Delta IVs are gone.

Which was never that hot to begin with. Even during the Cold War; a significant portion of their SSBN fleet was always tied up at the piers. A Tu-95/Tu-160 dispersed somewhere amongst the 11 billion PVO fields is more survivable than a Typhoon sitting at a dock tied up, it's reactor cold.

There aren't that many airfields that can accommodate the Tu-160 and certainly far less than the U.S. has warheads (no other country could even credibly threaten Russia's silo based forces) so really it wouldn't help much at all.

Even if only a small fraction of Russia's SSBN's are at sea at any given time the ones that are are effectively invulnerable and their missiles nearly unstoppable. The Tu-160/Kh-55 even if it escapes is not a credible threat to anything protected by modern air defenses and the Kh-101 does not look like it will be a major improvement (pop-out engines kill stealthiness) in that regard.

Add to that the fact bombers are by far the most costly way to deliver nuclear warheads and there is very little reason for Russia to pursue a bomber force instead of an SSBN force.

Russia is right to pursue an SSBN force to maintain the effectiveness of it's nuclear deterrent but it is a bit of a mystery to me why the Bulava was chosen over the Sineva or Bark (which on paper seem to be superior missiles in terms of throw weight).

[Vympel]

The Tu-160/Kh-55 even if it escapes is not a credible threat to anything protected by modern air defenses and the Kh-101 does not look like it will be a major improvement (pop-out engines kill stealthiness) in that regard.

On the other hand, their natural target, the continental US hardly has a credible IADS to stop a massive Kh-55/Kh-101 attack anyway. We don't really know much about the Kh-101, apart from pictures of the mock-up versions on a Tu-95MSM, conceptual drawings of its propulsion vary considerably.

it is a bit of a mystery to me why the Bulava was chosen over the Sineva or Bark (which on paper seem to be superior missiles in terms of throw weight).

Sineva is liquid fueled, so in the long term, Russian Navy wasn't interested in it anymore. Bark was canceled because they thought it had too many failures and Bulava would be made to work quicker, thanks to bullshit political lobbying from MITT (who were riding high from their highly successful Topol-M program).

Big mistake. They should've realised that MITT's competence in making a completely indigenous ICBM wouldn't translate into making a completely indigenous SLBM. Makeyev had way more experience - though they were always more comfortable with a liquid fueled, rather than solid fueled, SLBM design.

[Void]

Well that's partly because Soviet/Russian bombers haven't ever been a major threat compared to the massive number of ICBMs and SLBMs. Though if Russia were to get serious about it's bomber force like the USAF the U.S. would almost certainly take continental air defense more seriously.

Air defense isn't cheap and a massive network like the Soviets had probably wasn't justifiable when Soviet ICBM's had enough warheads to hit every strategic target in the United States several times over.

There is an excellent thread from the Secret Projects Forum on the Kh-101 which includes a repost of a Janes Defense Weekly article on the Kh-101: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 46.msg9220

It's certainly a stealthier design than the Kh-55 but it doesn't look like it will be on par with the ACM/JASSM (though given the cost of the ACM and issues with the JASSM that might not be such a bad thing).

[K. A. Pital]

Though if Russia were to get serious about it's bomber force like the USAF the U.S. would almost certainly take continental air defense more seriously.

Actually, a small bomber force against a lax IADS is a good thing. And thousand of km ranged cruise missiles are nice weapons. The Tu-160 demonstrated repeatedly that it could come within a very short distance of both US and British coasts.

Air defense isn't cheap and a massive network like the Soviets had probably wasn't justifiable when Soviet ICBM's had enough warheads to hit every strategic target in the United States several times over.

Yeah, basically the point of a large IADS with itnerceptors and SAMs was to operate against a saturation bomber attack, but the USSR was not going to have anything similar to the USAF levels of bomber strength in a long long while.

It's certainly a stealthier design than the Kh-55 but it doesn't look like it will be on par with the ACM/JASSM

The Kh-101 is still stealthy enough to penetrate at will; it's obscene range of 5000-6000 km gives it a lot of advantages vs. point of penetration; not to mention the capability for a sub-launched modification similar to taht of the Kh-55. With a frontal RCS of 0,01 msq it's a good weapon.

The AGM's range is pathetic - it's a tactical missile which is risking the carrier since it has to come far closer; the JASSM is a far better comparison.

[Sea Skimmer]

[
The Kh-101 is still stealthy enough to penetrate at will; it's obscene range of 5000-6000 km gives it a lot of advantages vs. point of penetration; not to mention the capability for a sub-launched modification similar to taht of the Kh-55. With a frontal RCS of 0,01 msq it's a good weapon.

Where’d you find out if the Kh-101 has a drop down engine like the Kh-55 or not? If the engine drops down, which is somewhat likely given the massive range claim, then it will show turbine fans ahead which will enormously increase its RCS. Last I checked no pictures have some out which would even let one guess at the engine configuration.

The AGM's range is pathetic - it's a tactical missile which is risking the carrier since it has to come far closer; the JASSM is a far better comparison.

? Assuming you mean Advanced Cruise Missile, the range is 1,900 miles. Tactical it is not. AGM-86 reaches about 1,500 miles with a nuke meanwhile. Its JASSM which is short ranged, at only about 250 miles at the moment but the ER version is already flight testing which will reach closer to 600 miles. The USAF doesn’t have any other cruise missiles. The USN does operate the 150 mile range SLAM-ER.

[K. A. Pital]

Ah shite, you're right Skimmer. Messed up ACM and JASSM - ACM is long range the JASSM is not. As for drop down engines, hell if I know. I'll read up on it.

[Omega18]

It looks like switching the new Russian SSBNs to use the Sineva Missiles instead of the Bulavas and just cancelling the project really isn't a viable option. (Among other issues the Sineva SLBMs are much longer than the Bulava.)

The military has a lot riding on the Bulava. Its three newest Borei-class nuclear submarines are designed especially to carry Bulavas. One of the submarines, the Yury Dolgoruky, cost 23 billion rubles ($800 million) to build, and it completed sea tests earlier this month.

Redesigning the Borei submarines to carry the Sineva, the intercontinental ballistic missile currently deployed on nuclear submarines, would cost roughly as much as building new submarines, said Alexander Khramchikhin, an analyst with the Institute of Political and Military Analysis.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1 ... 379764.htm

The rest of the article is about the head designer at MITT resigning in the wake the latest testing failure of the Bulava.

[Vympel]

They should've gotten Makeyev involved in the project the moment things started to go wrong, Makeyev has way more experience with naval based missiles and they really got shafted with the unfair cancellation of the Bark SLBM.

Unfortunately the entire thing has become highly politicized (well it did when MITT started throwing its weight around years ago).

[PeZook]

You know, it's really not that bad. The Proton rocket had dozens of failures during development and it turned out to be one of the best boosters out there. It really seems to be the way Russians do things in rocketry

It wasn't all that stellar before, either; look what happened to their moon rocket program.

What, the N-1? Its design was its biggest flaw. Getting a rocket with thirty engines in its first stage to work reliably would be a great achievement for anybody.

[Vympel]

Yeah, the reason it's viewed as an embarassment is because they've been touting it for years as the cornerstone of their naval deterrent going into the future. They've only themselves to blame, otherwise, you'd only hear about the failures in more obscure defence publications.