Russian Strategic Missile Forces (Surface and Subsurface)

[Sean Osborne]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull



New Russian ballistic missile fails again in test


An experimental Russian ballistic missile veered off its course shortly after having been launched from a Russian nuclear submarine and fell into the sea Wednesday in its second consecutive launch failure in as many months, officials said.

The Bulava missile was launched from the Dmitry Donskoy nuclear submarine in the White Sea toward a testing range on the far-eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, but it veered off its designated flight path minutes after the liftoff. The missile self-liquidated and its fragments fell into the sea, the navy said in a statement.

The botched launch signaled serious problems with the much-lauded Bulava.

The previous Bulava launch, from the same submarine on September 7, also ended in failure, prompting Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov to urge quick action to prevent the mishap from damaging plans for commissioning new Borei-class submarines.

Three such submarines currently under construction are to be equipped with Bulava.

"The failure means that the entire new class of submarines has no missile to be equipped with," Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent military analyst, told The Associated Press. "That's a big problem for the military."

The two previous flight tests of Bulava missiles in 2005 were successful, and another test in 2004 that did not involve firing the missile's engines went well, Russian news reports said.

The missiles are being developed by the Moscow-based Heat Technology Institute, which designed the new ground-based Topol-M missile and had no previous experience in building submarine-based missiles.

The institute's chief, Yuri Solomonov, said the Bulava could also be modified for use with land-based strategic missile forces. Earlier this year, he said the Topol-M and Bulava missiles would form the core of the nation's nuclear forces until 2040 and allow Russia to maintain nuclear parity with the United States.

According to Russian news reports, the Bulava has a range of 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles) and is designed to carry six individually targeted nuclear warheads.

Felgenhauer said that authorities had skipped test launches of Bulava from land-based launchpads in order to save funds and speed up their deployment. "During the Soviet times, they didn't test-fire experimental missiles from submarines because it was considered too risky," he told the AP.

Other submarine-based missile tests for the Russian military have ended in failure in recent years.
The navy suffered two embarrassing launch failures during Northern Fleet maneuvers attended by President Vladimir Putin in February 2004 when one missile failed to blast off from a submarine and a day later, another exploded shortly after launch.

"Russia has serious problems with the naval component of its nuclear forces," Felgenhauer said.

[Joey Bagadonuts]

Hmmmmmm.....I have such distrust for the Russians that I can't help but wonder if this is nothing but pure 100% disinformation.

A HUGE lie....a lie that they want us desperately to believe.

"The failure means that the entire new class of submarines has no missile to be equipped with," "That's a big problem for the military."

Russia has serious problems with the naval component of its nuclear forces,

Any ideas on this Sean?


***

[Ryan Ruck]

I have a gut feeling much the same as yours Joey...

We are talking about a variant of a missile that the Russians have had in serial production for a number of years (the Topol-M). So we are to believe that the Topol-M flies just fine yet a slightly different varient won't?

We already know the Russians have a history of disinformation when it comes to missiles. In the 1960s, the Russians fooled us into thinking that their missiles were more innacurate than they really were by having them send out a combination of false and true telemetry data. They knew which was which and because we assumed that the Russians were behind us in missile tech, that the false numbers were correct because they most closely matched our predictions. The complete opposite was true.

[Sean Osborne]

Hmmmmmm.....I have such distrust for the Russians that I can't help but wonder if this is nothing but pure 100% disinformation.

A HUGE lie....a lie that they want us desperately to believe.

Any ideas on this Sean?


***

Yes, I have a couple of pretty good ideas. One of which is faith-based, the other a secular suspicion.

Per my #1 idea - I know without question that both Russia and Iran have a rapidly approaching day of reckoning per Ezekiel (38/39). (That reckoning will follow in short order on the heels of the destruction of Syria (Damascus) in the Phase II of the war which is about to erupt in southern Lebanon, the Golan and northern Israel.) When Russia and Iran make their overwhelmingly massive move towards and over Israel in support of their defeated Syrian ally their offensive weapons and defensive systems will be rendered totally inoperable, their military forces will be utterly annihilated.

Per my #2 idea - I have a suspicion that strategic Russian weapons like the "Bulava" are far less than they're cracked up to be. They do not function as designed. Remember the Kursk? Oops. Those kinds of serious technical problems continually plague the Ruskie military. Perhaps these kinds of things, with a little "help" from the Lord are at the core of the certain and annihilating defeat just down the road apiece.

[eversman]

Yes, I have a couple of pretty good ideas. One of which is faith-based, the other a secular suspicion.

Per my #1 idea - I know without question that both Russia and Iran have a rapidly approaching day of reckoning per Ezekiel (38/39). (That reckoning will follow in short order on the heels of the destruction of Syria (Damascus) in the Phase II of the war which is about to erupt in southern Lebanon, the Golan and northern Israel.) When Russia and Iran make their overwhelmingly massive move towards and over Israel in support of their defeated Syrian ally their offensive weapons and defensive systems will be rendered totally inoperable, their military forces will be utterly annihilated.

Per my #2 idea - I have a suspicion that strategic Russian weapons like the "Bulava" are far less than they're cracked up to be. They do not function as designed. Remember the Kursk? Oops. Those kinds of serious technical problems continually plague the Ruskie military. Perhaps these kinds of things, with a little "help" from the Lord are at the core of the certain and annihilating defeat just down the road apiece.

I seem to remember the Russians/ Soviets have had problems with ballistic missile reliability in the past. during the cold war many models of road-mobile and train-mobile ICBMs were plagued with reliability issues, as they were pressed into service without proper testing, quality control, or shoddy design flaws. Im thinking of, an going from memory here, but the SS-25 had issues i think. and i THINK that was a solid fuel bird that had problems, cant remember which but in the transition between either first to second stage or second to third, the bird would blow up. not sure if they ever DID fix that problem so this reliability issue is not new.

i am not surprised that the bulava is having serious problems. we had a proper test program and pretty good quality control and look at how hard it was to make the polaris system work. and even Trident had its teething issues. its not an easy thing to do, and its bound to have its problems.

However, Sean you hit it on the head when you mentioned the Oscar II class SSGN 'kursk'. it is indicative of the state of the soviet navy, particularly the Red Banner Northern Fleet, and the Russian SSBN Force in focus. with the three new ssbn's under construction, the retirement of the typhoon class ssbn, and the improvement program of the delta IV class ssbn's, the russian navy is in dire need of new SSBNs to fill the roll and continue to function as a reliable credible deterrent. there is huge political and economic pressure to get the bulava into service ahead of the SSBNs set to carry them. Its no wonder the missile is having test and launch failures, it is clearly not ready to be deployed and the russians are pushing the program far faster than it should be, and the results are obvious.

Why are we hearing about the test failures? because you cant really hide them. america has FIFTY YEARS of monitoring soviet ICBM and SLBM tests and its just too hard to hide a test. If the missile blows up, its hard to hide that too. the reason its clear its a failure is because of the political machinations going on in the former Soviet Defence Ministry. people are angry in the Defence Ministry and in the russian fleet. The program is clearly underfunded, and lacking sufficient resources.

Ryan, you made a very good point: theyve tested the Topol-M and it works. it works well. theyve had several successful tests, and it works, its certified. Yet, the Bulava is a modified Variant of the Topol-M and it is an utter failure so far. it leads me to speculate that one of two things is true.
first, the design bureau responsible for this missile's developement hasnt quite got SLBM expertise figured out yet, and that may be the best case, as they have never been involved with the developement of an SLBM, only ICBMs. the second case is that the weapon just suffers from poor quality control and or design flaws that are not critical in the ICBM version but cause fatal defects in the SLBM version. this could well be the case.

it could also be said that BOTH are true to some degree and i think this is most likely.

ev

[American Patriot]

they're lying

[Sean Osborne]

However, Sean you hit it on the head when you mentioned the Oscar II class SSGN 'kursk'. it is indicative of the state of the soviet navy, particularly the Red Banner Northern Fleet, and the Russian SSBN Force in focus. with the three new ssbn's under construction, the retirement of the typhoon class ssbn, and the improvement program of the delta IV class ssbn's, the russian navy is in dire need of new SSBNs to fill the roll and continue to function as a reliable credible deterrent. there is huge political and economic pressure to get the bulava into service ahead of the SSBNs set to carry them. Its no wonder the missile is having test and launch failures, it is clearly not ready to be deployed and the russians are pushing the program far faster than it should be, and the results are obvious.

Why are we hearing about the test failures? because you cant really hide them. america has FIFTY YEARS of monitoring soviet ICBM and SLBM tests and its just too hard to hide a test. If the missile blows up, its hard to hide that too. the reason its clear its a failure is because of the political machinations going on in the former Soviet Defence Ministry. people are angry in the Defence Ministry and in the russian fleet. The program is clearly underfunded, and lacking sufficient resources.

Ryan, you made a very good point: theyve tested the Topol-M and it works. it works well. theyve had several successful tests, and it works, its certified. Yet, the Bulava is a modified Variant of the Topol-M and it is an utter failure so far. it leads me to speculate that one of two things is true.
first, the design bureau responsible for this missile's developement hasnt quite got SLBM expertise figured out yet, and that may be the best case, as they have never been involved with the developement of an SLBM, only ICBMs. the second case is that the weapon just suffers from poor quality control and or design flaws that are not critical in the ICBM version but cause fatal defects in the SLBM version. this could well be the case.

it could also be said that BOTH are true to some degree and i think this is most likely.

ev

Yup, exactamundo! I reposted Ev's comments above for emphasis. Understanding the Kursk and the problems Russian submarine strategic systems have long been plagued with is the answer to the question we're looking at here regarding the Bulava. Forcing strategic systems with developmental issues into advenced testing regimens is akin to stuffing 10 lbs of garbage down a 5 lb hole.

[frankrm]

I wouldn't totaly dis the Russian threat by stating their failures.

On another topic. I wonder if anyone can provide some info.
Who was the KGB agent who got the idea in the 60"s to utilize the Islamic countries to push against the West? Is there an article I might save? Would be nice to have some saved data on these key issues. Its hard for a little brain to regurgitate all this info.

[Ryan Ruck]

frank,
You might want to check this thread - Russia's Involvement With Terrorism.