Russia tests new missiles

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yes. Only ICBM/SLBM. The Iskander is counted separately. 13 Iskander missiles and 5 Iskander complexes are due next year.
 

SkolZkiy

New Member
1 - Borei next year after Bulava is ok (and it will be ok).
2- severodvinsk project 885 attack sub
3- lada class project 677 diesel sub
these three are expected to be ready next year.
I only doubt about Lada - there was said that there are too many new equipment on it.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I don't know how ok it will be next year. So far there are rumors of another failed launch (with a spectacular view of it from Norway). And no confirmed dates for the next launch. I would expect 3-4 successful launches before it enters service.
 

Wall83

Member
1 - Borei next year after Bulava is ok (and it will be ok).
2- severodvinsk project 885 attack sub
3- lada class project 677 diesel sub
these three are expected to be ready next year.
I only doubt about Lada - there was said that there are too many new equipment on it.
But the article states 3 Nuclear submarines would enter servce next year, Lada is diesel/electric powerd.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Correct. It's a mystery. Maybe both Boreis are to be handed over next year. I'll do some digging.
 

Wall83

Member
It could be that they are counting the Akula attack submarine Nerpa as one of the three. Even if it will be leased to India it still counts as Russian.
 
Any news about the Bulava program? The last test was a failure again it seems, the missile didnt even leave the submarine. .
can someone clarify something for me - even as a test firing (with a dummy warhead) - what are the dangers to the submarine or crew if there is a failed launch and the missile fails to be ejected from the launch platform?

e.g.
-what happens if the missile is being launched underwater and fails to eject - how are the missile tubes designed to handle the water injection from the open missile tube?
-what happens if the missile is ejected but boost stage fails and the missile falls back into the water and sinks down, hitting/landing on the sub
-what happens if the missile is launched from surface (such as typhoon capabilities) - and the same happens (missile fails to boost and falls down back onto the ship)

what type of defense or provisions are there for these types of failures?
what other failures / possibilities are there that have been taken into account, that i may have not thought of?

thanks,
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
It could be that they are counting the Akula attack submarine Nerpa as one of the three. Even if it will be leased to India it still counts as Russian.
Bingo. I think a round of applause is in order. The Nerpa will be handed over to the VMF before it gets leased to India.

Also our MoD has admitted a failed launch, after the spectacular light show that Norwegians enjoyed recently.

ÀÐÌÑ-ÒÀÑÑ
 

Wall83

Member
One thing about the Bulava missile program is that is doesnt seem to be going anywhere.
How many times have the third stage failed now? 3-4 times?
However I doubt that the production can take all the blaim. All other missile like the Topol-M, RS-24 and Sineva seems to be working great without any launchproblems.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Actually what's so spectacular is that it hasn't been the same parts of the missile failing. First stage has failed. The missile has failed to launch a couple of times. Third stage separation has failed a couple of times. The guidance has failed a couple of times. Now we have fuel leaking out of the missile in mid-flight. Such a huge array of problems when the missile is essentially in final testing stage seems to suggest quality control. Granted I don't know the specifics so it's just my speculation.
 

Wall83

Member
Actually what's so spectacular is that it hasn't been the same parts of the missile failing. First stage has failed. The missile has failed to launch a couple of times. Third stage separation has failed a couple of times. The guidance has failed a couple of times. Now we have fuel leaking out of the missile in mid-flight. Such a huge array of problems when the missile is essentially in final testing stage seems to suggest quality control. Granted I don't know the specifics so it's just my speculation.
Strange that its just the Bulava that has this problems then. The Votkinsk Plant does produce all the other missiles to right?

Exept the Sineva I see. Maybe the Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant should take over the development and production for the Bulava as well.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Plants don't do development. Plants do manufacturing. KBs and Institutes do development. There have also been some official condemnations of the quality issues with the Bulava manufacturing including iirc an investigation into faulty parts supplied. We'll see if it gets anywhere.
 

Wall83

Member
Quoteing a guy that commented on the Bulava testings and the Sineva SLBM on russianforces.org.
He relly has some god point.

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.
 

Chrom

New Member
Quoteing a guy that commented on the Bulava testings and the Sineva SLBM on russianforces.org.
He relly has some god point.
Too hastily comment. Bulava have some problems in development, but to the date they are just usual development problems, nothing out of order compared to earlier examples of successful developments. Only 12 test launches - usually missiles in development have around 20, and 5-8 of them fail before development comes to final stage.

Mass media makes big thing out of each failed launch - but this is just phenomena of today's news coverage and politic PR. This have little to do with real development problems.

As for other missiles - USSR and USA carry on average around 10 BM launches each, EVERY year to confirm service life and missile readiness. Absolutely most of them are successful.

Seems everyone (in Russia) expected too much from modern development tools and processes, expected smooth development thanks to all that computer modeling and such. Made too much promises. Well, they were wrong and now these promises strike them back. They should have do all this more quiet from beginning. Now it is too late - each fail will be a news header.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
We have 12 launches. 1 Fullly successful. 4 sort of successful. The rest utter failures. This doesn't seem normal. I'll go dig up the statistics, if I can find them, on previous ICBM/SLBM development. Also last year Russia carried out iirc 3 ICBM launches, outside of the Bulava program. Not 10.
 

Chrom

New Member
We have 12 launches. 1 Fullly successful. 4 sort of successful. The rest utter failures. This doesn't seem normal. I'll go dig up the statistics, if I can find them, on previous ICBM/SLBM development. Also last year Russia carried out iirc 3 ICBM launches, outside of the Bulava program. Not 10.
This is on average. One year somewhat more, another somewhat less. For example year 2004 - 15 launches total.
•December 24: SS-27
•December 22: SS-18
•November 2: SS-25, SS-18
•September 8: SS-N-23, SS-N-18
•August 11: SS-19
•June 29: SS-N-23, SS-18
•April 20: SS-27
•March 17: SS-N-23 (2 missiles)
•February 12: SS-19 (2 missiles), SS-27

Basically, about half missiles ever manufactured are fired in test launches - just becouse it is cheaper to "test" them than to scrap them near they service life end.

As for 2009 laucnhes... just out of my mind - 2 "Sineva" launches in last big exercise, 1 "Topol" launch in April and 1 week ago,. so already 4. There were surely more, i just dont want to dig for it. In 2008 russian MOD said there will be around 20 ICBM test launches in 2009.
 
Last edited:
Top