Russia's new submarine launched ballastic missile fails.

en.rian.ru...

MOSCOW, October 25 (RIA Novosti) - A Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile launched from the Dmitry Donskoi nuclear submarine in the White Sea self-destructed after it deviated from its trajectory, the Russian Navy press service said Wednesday.

A Navy spokesman said the missile lifted off successfully from a submerged position, but that it deviated from its trajectory several minutes into the flight.

"It could have triggered a self-destruct system," he said, adding that a special commission will conduct a detailed investigation into the cause of the incident.

A similar test conducted September 7 also failed when an error in the testing program during the second stage of the flight caused the missile to miss its designated target.

The R-30 Bulava (SS-NX-30) ballistic missile was developed at the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology. It can carry up to ten nuclear warheads and has a range of 8,000 kilometers (about 5,000 miles).

en.wikipedia.org...

These missiles are to be carried by the Borei class ballistic missile subs.

en.wikipedia.org...

Think this just another example of Russia's military especially the navy is declining? But then the U.S. have their own missile tests that have failed in the past. Russia's military have been trying to modernize and upgrade their military, but it seems to me that they can barely afford to buy anything new to replace the old systems.

First: You need a strong economy based on many employed people paying taxes to a government that is willing to support the people as well as the military.
Fix the infrastructure, fix the economy, eliminate the Mob, teach to be more like USA in 1950's (except for the McCarthyism).

Although it probably costs the Russians a lot to replace each missile when they don't get any success from one, I wouldn't worry about it if I were living in Russia. Even though I'm not in the missile business, I'm fairly certain that most missiles have a tendancy to fail on the first few tests. My guess is that they'll have this thing down after a few more tests considering that the Russians have been working with sub launched missiles longer than anybody else.

I see it is a relatively new missile first tested in 2005. For a minute there I was thinking oh-no Russian missiles are turning to junk and can end up landing in someones backyard by mistake. I suppose that's possible of any long ranger from any Country.

Dallas

Just an observation, but there is something of an inclination within the arms industry to present your new systems with unchallenging "tests" in order to build up a success reputation - AMRAAM comes to mind. But it's widely felt in most sectors. It's like a boxing coach pitting their next champ against "stock" fighters with barely a boxer's chance in order to build up the record for a title shot.

The point is that if you attempt to stretch the bounderies of technology and capability, you must expect and accept set-backs. No pain no gain. Whereas if you play it safe you can contrive all manner of newsworthy successful tests and never get anywhere near the capability that the other guys (Russians) are striving for.



[edit on 26-10-2006 by planeman]

I fail to see how launching a SLBM and having it go off course in a standard flight profile shortly after launch is pushing the bounds? Anyway, this is the second failure for the Bulava, another one failed in early September.

Link

It seems the manufacturers of the Bulava had had no earlier SLBM experience..
That would be strange considering the long history the russians have had vis-a-vis SLBMs..
Is this something like Sukhoi being favored more than MiG due to political reasons?
Politics and bureacracy in military affairs is a cancer I tell you. A cancer that is plauging my country

Missles especially new ones fail sometimes.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Think this just another example of Russia's military especially the navy is declining?

No.

But then the U.S. have their own missile tests that have failed in the past.

Yes.

Russia's military have been trying to modernize and upgrade their military, but it seems to me that they can barely afford to buy anything new to replace the old systems.

They have been modernizing what is critically important for survival and self defense and this new weapon system is of no great consequence to that goal. Do you know that they are still holing out entire mountains and upgrading their national ABM defenses that will blunt even a nuclear strike from the USA. Countries with these weapons in operation can easily afford to feign weakness and test new weapons as and when it suits them.

Stellar

Feigining weakness by testing new weapons is ok.. but the test was a con job nonetheless

Originally posted by StellarX
Countries with these weapons in operation can easily afford to feign weakness and test new weapons as and when it suits them.

So they never have an actual failure? Gee Willikers Batman. Now when a US test does not work out all I have to do is say "Feigning weakness boys, nothing to see here, move along".

[edit on 28-10-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I fail to see how launching a SLBM and having it go off course in a standard flight profile shortly after launch is pushing the bounds? Anyway, this is the second failure for the Bulava, another one failed in early September.

Link

Neither of us know the causes of the failures, but the missiles in question are undoubtedly cutting edge stuff. Among the claimed features:
* evasive maneuvering
* mid-course countermeasures and decoys
* warhead fully shielded against both physical and EMP damage including nuclear blasts

These missiles are essentially designed to raise the bar for America's missile defence efforts.

I'm not bothered whether these are better/worse than your beloved American nuclear weapons, but it seems reasonab.e to expect/allow some minor setbacks in persuit of such cutting edge technology.

Originally posted by planeman
Neither of us know the causes of the failures, but the missiles in question are undoubtedly cutting edge stuff. Among the claimed features:
* evasive maneuvering
* mid-course countermeasures and decoys
* warhead fully shielded against both physical and EMP damage including nuclear blasts

Besides the maneuvering, nothing there should be considered "cutting edge", this is Russia after all, not North Korea.

Originally posted by planeman
These missiles are essentially designed to raise the bar for America's missile defence efforts.

If our efforts were aimed at Russia in the first place that is.

Originally posted by planeman
I'm not bothered whether these are better/worse than your beloved American nuclear weapons, but it seems reasonab.e to expect/allow some minor setbacks in persuit of such cutting edge technology.

Neither am I, and you'll notice I never brought up the topic of US nuclear weapons or their capabilities. I also wonder how willing you would be in categorizing two consecutive launch failures in the US ABM program as "minor setbacks"?

[edit on 28-10-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
So they never have an actual failure?

They have that just like everyone else. How did you get the impression that i suggested they messed up this launch on purpose?

Gee Willikers Batman. Now when a US test does not work out all I have to do is say "Feigning weakness boys, nothing to see here, move along".

Feel free.

Stellar

yeah yeah..
it was NOT a con job..
typo in my earlier post..

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by deltaboy
Think this just another example of Russia's military especially the navy is declining?

No.

But then the U.S. have their own missile tests that have failed in the past.

Yes.

Russia's military have been trying to modernize and upgrade their military, but it seems to me that they can barely afford to buy anything new to replace the old systems.

They have been modernizing what is critically important for survival and self defense and this new weapon system is of no great consequence to that goal. Do you know that they are still holing out entire mountains and upgrading their national ABM defenses that will blunt even a nuclear strike from the USA. Countries with these weapons in operation can easily afford to feign weakness and test new weapons as and when it suits them.

Stellar

they are definitely not feigning weaknesses.

the bulava is being rushed through .

no weakness is being feigned though it was very well feigned during soviet era, if you are talking about ABM defences like s-300, it is not power or numbers or tech which matters it is the recon,hen house radars are ABM battle managment radars , and they are very old . but, yes civil defence is much better for LEADERSHIP ONLY,but the recon has deteriorated severely. there has been major change in russian doctrine...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
''''WRM: Nevertheless, it seems that your military forces are in such a state that modernization could fail, become too costly or even reach a state where modernization is strategically unintelligent.



IK: The current Russian army is going to be scrapped. We’ll dismantle tanks, aircrafts, navy and so on. Even our nuclear missiles are going to be scrapped. We are preparing for a huge rearmament. Not just another military reform, but building a new fighting force almost from scratch. We plan to finish it before 2010. It will not just be a Russian or Chinese force, .

www.worldthreats.com...

so you understand why bulava is being rushed.. russians are preparing for a major rearmament...
















[edit on 10-11-2006 by vK_man]

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
First: You need a strong economy based on many employed people paying taxes to a government that is willing to support the people as well as the military.
Fix the infrastructure, fix the economy, eliminate the Mob, teach to be more like USA in 1950's (except for the McCarthyism).

very silly .. arguement

rather their(russian) economy has very much improved...

and USA= it has a public debt of 8.5 trillion$

and there is massive deficit financing in USA

The Bulava is jut another sea based variant of the Topol-M. Now the failure of this missile would have to bring into doubt the claimed capability and reliability of the land based missiles the Russians have been making so much press about.

As ffor planemans point about cutting edge technology and claimed capabilities, they are just that claims.
BTW, manouvering MIRV's are nothing new and were pioneered by the US int eh 1970's.

Originally posted by rogue1
The Bulava is jut another sea based variant of the Topol-M. Now the failure of this missile would have to bring into doubt the claimed capability and reliability of the land based missiles the Russians have been making so much press about.

As ffor planemans point about cutting edge technology and claimed capabilities, they are just that claims.
BTW, manouvering MIRV's are nothing new and were pioneered by the US int eh 1970's.

they are pioneered simultenously by both rather, except that russian MARV currently designed , is able to manuever far more ,and normally such manuveurs would make the warheads distinegrate on re-entry

Originally posted by vK_man
they are pioneered simultenously by both rather, except that russian MARV currently designed

Nein the US built the first MARV's, just as they built the first MIRV's.

and normally such manuveurs would make the warheads distinegrate on re-entry

I wasn't aware you had access to the Russian technical data on their tests ? Care to post it ?