Russia successfully tests long-range missile

Shmack

Shmack

Active member
155599052.jpg


MOSCOW — The Russian navy on Thursday successfully test-fired an advanced ballistic missile from a nuclear submarine, giving a boost to the nation's top weapons program that has been haunted by a string of failures.

The successful launch of the Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile follows 12 previous tests over the past few years, most of which were failures. The failed launches have raised doubts about the military's most expensive weapons program and left a newly commissioned nuclear submarine weaponless.

Defense Ministry spokesman Alexei Kuznetsov told The Associated Press that the Bulava was launched Thursday from the Dmitry Donskoi nuclear submarine under the water in the White Sea. The missile's warheads successfully hit a designated area on the Kura testing range on the far-eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, he said.

The Bulava has been described by authorities as a future cornerstone of Russia's nuclear arsenal as older Soviet-built nuclear missiles are gradually retired.

Russian officials billed Bulava as a new-generation weapon, capable of dodging any potential missile defenses thanks to its quick start and an ability to perform unusual maneuvers in flight.

But the Bulava program has consumed a large chunk of the Russian military budget without producing any visible result. Only five of the previous 12 launches of the missile were officially pronounced successful, and some military analysts said that even some of those were actually flawed in one way or another.

Officials have insisted the Bulava's concept is fine and have blamed the failed launches on manufacturing flaws resulting from post-Soviet industrial degradation. They have said it is difficult to control the quality of all the parts supplied by hundreds of subcontractors involved in the program.

As the tests dragged on, the Russian navy has already commissioned the first of a new series of nuclear-powered submarines to be armed with the new missile, the Yuri Dolgoruky. Several other such submarines are under construction, and officials have said they could not be adapted to carry another type of missile if the Bulava program fails.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...H1krz0Ft00CidxZy6xfAD9IMPIRG0?docId=D9IMPIRG0

I must say these 2 years since the latest successful launch of this missile in 2008, and especially last several months were totally hemorrhoidal for Russia's ministry of defense including your humble servant. Hundreds of militarymen and scientists felt and looked like there was a quart of turpentine in their asses. All in all it's the 4th (3d from underwater, out of 12 including today's launch) fully successful launch which was essential for the entire nuclear program with 2 more left. Very likely in summer 2011 it will be put into service with the Northern fleet first Borei class sub.
 
Amanda said:
Did the United States make significant advances during this period of
Russian failures?
Click to expand...
Actually they don't need to, because the United States made all the requiered significant advance in the past. US Trident D5 missile is from the certain point of view outdated but first, it has a serious potential for modernization, and second, it's the most accurate, reliable and in many other ways advanced weapon of this type ever created. The US Navy will need the next-generation missile to replace it only by 2030.
 
Does that mean the U.S. missle is far better than the one Russia is just now
succeeding with?
 
Amanda said:
Does that mean the U.S. missle is far better than the one Russia is just now
succeeding with?
Click to expand...
Well, it's not all that simple of course.
Trident missile is superior to Bulava in terms of accuracy, throw-weight and, thus shooting range. On the other hand, Bulava is superior to Trident concerning missile's endurance. Bulava is smaller and much lighter, it is faster during boost phase, it runs along low-angle trajectory. Roughly speaking, everything was made to prevent a missile from being hit.
There's also a fog of war with accuracy since the missile is equipped with radiocorrector which corrects trajectory with the help of GLONASS ('Russian NAVSTAR'), which is currently not fully operational.
So, it depends. But still, there is one certain fact: there's no such dramatic difference between these missile that could force any of the countries start developing a new one at once and provoke an arms race. It's just we have a littile different nuclear warfare planning concepts.
 
They finally got it flying :lol:

How long has it been, ten years... God... Shows how far our weapons research and design ability has fallen. Back in CCCP, I think they made a new class of missiles every two years or something.

I mean, that was a bit much, true. Nobody needs 20,000 nuclear warheads. But with Bulava, it was just disgraceful.

Oh, well, at least it works now.Are they going to be putting them on Borei subs soon? That is what Bulava was designed for, after all.
 
I would have thought a technology that needed ten years just to successfully launch
would have been made obsolete in that time or at least be far less superior than its competitor who had a working missile in that ten years, especially if the U.S. had been improving theirs over that same ten year period. Did we miss an opportunity?
(Not in terms of "provoking an arms race" just for the sake of the "chess match".)
 
Amanda said:
I would have thought a technology that needed ten years just to successfully launch
would have been made obsolete in that time or at least be far less superior than its competitor who had a working missile in that ten years, especially if the U.S. had been improving theirs over that same ten year period. Did we miss an opportunity?
(Not in terms of "provoking an arms race" just for the sake of the "chess match".)
Click to expand...
That's a good point, and it in no way contradicts what i've already said. Since Trident D5 was first launched in 1987 there was some serious work on its modernization of course, while at the same time Russia a) already by that time had less advanced technologies in the field of submarine-launched missiles, b) had less money. Fortunately or unfortunately, that was the exact time the cold war came to an end, and nobody saw any sense in trying to catch up with the US.

Nowadays Russia is spending ocean-wide sums of money on sbumarine-launched missiles, but that is being made in order to prevent a huge scientific branch from collapse. In order to compete with the US, Russia has to invest such money it simply doesn't have.

The thing is that we are talking about quite a special weapon, which despite all the above listed nuances will most probably kill people with equal effectiveness, especially when there are thousands of missiles.
 
Well, I dont see how it can be outdated during the development time.

Both countries had launchers to throw nuclear charges at each others... That was the point now.

But I think that Russia have the advantage now, unless the US are hiding something under their sleeve.
As this new model from Russia is maybe lighter and less capable when it comes to carrying a big charge, but it's ability to survive counter measures is superior.

And I dont know that they had the all the modern tools or the concepts to evade modern anti missile system back in 1987.

And if you care about equilibrium, the US have plenty of anti missile systems and a serious infrastructure in Europe to protect its interest. And they have plenty of cold war era technology missiles capable of turning the whole planet into a ball of flames... And the Russians have a better potential to send missiles capable of going through the anti-missile shield of its strategic enemies.

So there is an equilibrium somehow...

Am I correct?
 
'Outdated' is hardly an acceptable term when we're talking about nuclear weapons. As i've already said, Russia and the US have their 'strong points'. There were no fundamental changes in ballistic missile design since the beginning of the GPS era in navigation back in 1980's. We (i mean mankind) have already achieved unlimited range of fire, incredbile 9 tons throw-weight and several dozens of meters of accuracy. At some moment one had to make a choise whether it is enough or not and had to find compromise between further development and reduction in defense spendings.

There is equilibrium, but that is mostly due to the sizes of arsenals, not diversity in technologies. Russia's most advanced ABM systems in theory can shoot down America's most advanced ICBMs, but no S-300/-400/-500 can handle with.. say.. 10 Titan missiles against one target, and vice versa. That is equilibrium.
 
"Well, I dont see how it can be outdated during the development time."
-Of course the laws of physics and the certainty of nuclear proliferation don't change in ten years, but technology usually does. If you and I have competing similar products and you idle in failure for ten years (no offence, Federation) while mine progresses I should have rendered what you began with at least somewhat inferior... I am not disputing anything Schmack says (of course) about the success of the individual respective programs but I still think the United States should have done something in that ten years that would have put the Federations program even further behind. Technology evolves.
 
Sounds like the Trident and Bulava are developed to do the same job in a different manner. The Trident's greatest obstacle to overcome was distance, the Soviet Union and now Russia is massive, and much of the northern coast is iced over, which means a missile would have to be launched from either the Atlantic or Pacific and pass over vast distances before reaching its target. The United States is, relatively speaking, smaller and more exposed, but even with the poor status of our current missile defense system, the Russians feel it is something that must be overcome. As a result the Bulava is being build to better avoid detection and destruction by our defenses. Is my understanding of the basic differences correct?

That having been said, I find it disheartening that our two countries are still looking at ways to exterminate one another.
 
Damien435 said:
Sounds like the Trident and Bulava are developed to do the same job in a different manner. The Trident's greatest obstacle to overcome was distance, the Soviet Union and now Russia is massive, and much of the northern coast is iced over, which means a missile would have to be launched from either the Atlantic or Pacific and pass over vast distances before reaching its target. The United States is, relatively speaking, smaller and more exposed, but even with the poor status of our current missile defense system, the Russians feel it is something that must be overcome. As a result the Bulava is being build to better avoid detection and destruction by our defenses. Is my understanding of the basic differences correct?

That having been said, I find it disheartening that our two countries are still looking at ways to exterminate one another.
Click to expand...

Bulava, if I understand it correctly, is intended to be launched from Borei-class submarines
borei_class_l5.jpg


To compare, old Typhoons are armed with R-39 Rif SLBMs

Weight 84 tonnes Length 16 m (8.4 m without warhead) Diameter 2.4 mWarhead 6 - 10 Blast yield 100 - 200 Kt each
Operational range range 8,250 km
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-39_%28missile%29

RSM-56 Bulava

Weight 36.8 metric tons Length 11.5 m (without warhead), 12.1 m (launch container) Diameter 2 m (missile), 2.1 m (launch container)Warhead 6–12 re-entry vehicles with a yield of 100–150 kT each.
Operational range 8,000 to 10,000 kilometers
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56_Bulava

So, Bulava is smaller and lighter, but with bigger range.

And yes, it is bad that we are still inventing ways to destroy each other.
 
Damien435 said:
Sounds like the Trident and Bulava are developed to do the same job in a different manner. The Trident's greatest obstacle to overcome was distance, the Soviet Union and now Russia is massive, and much of the northern coast is iced over, which means a missile would have to be launched from either the Atlantic or Pacific and pass over vast distances before reaching its target. The United States is, relatively speaking, smaller and more exposed, but even with the poor status of our current missile defense system, the Russians feel it is something that must be overcome. As a result the Bulava is being build to better avoid detection and destruction by our defenses. Is my understanding of the basic differences correct?

That having been said, I find it disheartening that our two countries are still looking at ways to exterminate one another.
Click to expand...
If we're talking about Russia and the US, we don't mind their size. The way from Russia to the United States lies across the North Pole. As for Russia, even Bulava's 8000 kilometers range of fire is more than enough, because basically Russian subs armed with nuclear missiles are rare visitors to the North Atlantic, so the most probable scenario is that they will shoot directly from their ports or outer roadsteads before the American nukes pounce at these ports. Russian subs had always been designed for such case. The US has a greater number of subs and missiles and their main vantage is mobility and constant dispersion all over the seven seas. That is a doctrine and it dictates that missiles should have a huge range of fire, so it's a vital priority.

As for mutual extermination... You know, they way i see it, it's more of a contest rather than seeking for unquestionable superiority. Besides, Russia and the US are not the only nations that possess nuclear missiles. I don't think it would be wise to give up the pre-eminence which was gained at a heavy cost.
 
But I cant stop myself from thinking how retarded our leaders can be.

We are still believing that nuclear weapons could be a solution to anything... And we are still investing in this stupid technology while the real military thinkers are trying to develop really useful tools for warfare.

Some are working on GPS guided artillery shells to avoid collateral damage. And we have on the other side, some dumbasses still building ICBMs to destroy cities and turning whole continents into radioactive hell holes...

We are waging a total war on terrorism, we need accuracy and controled demolition, intelligence gathering tools etc... And we have some political leaders and military officiers still playing chess with their expensive heavy missiles... Too expensive and way too destructive to be used in an actual war.

We have crazy scientist working on doom day devices... Like in a James Bond Movie. The big vilain trying to dominate the world...

I think it's big time that the honest people took weapons to smash some sets of teeth...
No mass destruction weapons. We dont need them.
 
LeMask, do you think Israel shall withstand all surrounding Arab countries' offensive with help of accuracy and controlled demolition? Your views concerning nuclear warfare are too idealistic. It is political warfare, not combat one.

We don't have crazy scientists working on doomsday devices.
 
Well, killing millions of innocent people to save millions of innocent people isnt a solution.

Nuclear weapons wont save Israel.

In fact, nuclear weapons could push a country like Israel toward its own destruction.

Israel is at war with its neighbors because of the arrogance built from having such destructive power. If the Israeli had less powerful weapons, war would cost too much, and they wouldnt dare to try to survive with brute force alone, they would be forced to negociate with their neighbors.

The Israel we know today wouldnt exist in such conditions, maybe that Israel would have been destroyed since the begining, or, if he managed to survive, it would be a more peaceful and less arrogant Israel.

A lot of "if" and other "would", but it's how I see things.

And by the way, the actual Israel is seen as a joke of democracy, human rights etc... The only people who have some faith in the actual Israel are fanatics and the descendants of the colonial era.

So I dont think if the actual Israel is worth saving... It have to reach many standards of ethics and morals to have my support.

But by the way, I dont know one other nation who deserves such a sacrifice to be saved.
 
What sacrifice? Since 1945 nuclear bomb hasn't killed a single person. We're not talking about killing one million to save another million, we're talking about both millions staying alive. You can't threaten a bunch of Hamas guerillas with a nuclear bomb, but you can do it with Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Syria.

You think Israel is not worth saving? Well, it's up to you, but the jews don't think so and you have to live with that. If you don't like Israeli example, all right, same with Iran. For them a nuclear bomb is the only guarantee from foreign invasion, once and for all. It doesn't mean Iran shall strike here and there with nuclear weapons in case of invasion, it means nobody shall invade Iran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top