Russian Armed Forces News & Discussion thread

[artjomh]

Bulava problem was quality control problem not a flaw in the design so MIT is not fully to be blamed its a Industry problem that cannot enforce quality and use cheap substitute since what was recommended by designer were not available , ofcourse MIT became the fall guy due to bad press.

Yeah, sure, this is what Solomonov wants you to believe.

The original failure of MIT was not the trial phase (which can be blamed on poor quality control), but the original bullsh!t they fed to MOD when they told them in 1999 that Bulava will be easy because it will be a copy of Topol-M. Turns out, they have almost nothing in common and it took 10 years to actually figure out the missile design.

May be Makeyev had the advantage of existing manufacturing base in Krasnoyarsk, which has been producing R-29RM Sineva missiles that can quickly establish ICBM manufacturing base and I read they were working on sealed liquid/gel fuel that like solid fuel once fuel does not need to defuel it had the Bulava got cancelled for some reason.

Ampulized liquid fuels have been around forever. Missiles get fueled once at the factory and that's it.

[Austin]

The original failure of MIT was not the trial phase (which can be blamed on poor quality control), but the original bullsh!t they fed to MOD when they told them in 1999 that Bulava will be easy because it will be a copy of Topol-M. Turns out, they have almost nothing in common and it took 10 years to actually figure out the missile design.

Yuri mentioned that they won the Bulava deal because they had better ideas over what Makayev offered and the latter was offering the same thing in new bottle and looking at Bulava it certainly has many new promosing thing in there and probably to enforce it they had success of Topol-M under their belt and at that point in time when money was still not coming , they simply made a economical/technological case to MOD , MOD on its part over looked the experience that Makayev had. ( both MOD and MIT simply overlooked the fact that industry was not geared to develop Bulava )

The only common thing i believe between Bulava and MIT product RS-24 will be its warhead both claim to have maneuverable warhead and they have near identical throw up weight , perhaps the sold fuel itself and guidance and materials (composite casing etc )

They are different design with many common and uncommon things there , I think the commonness is greatly exaggerated by media.

[Andy_UA]

New ICBM contract reportedly went to Makeyev Design Bureau

So NPO-MASH will develop Angara and Rus-M space launch vehical

They will be contractors, but the more work will be done by NPO-MASH and CSKB samara imho....
They and NPO-MASH oriinally lobbied the heavy ICBM in 2007 - http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2007-06-08/6_rockets.html
http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/archive/1367/1367602.htm
a different design from what MoD chose apparently..

[Austin]

Finally and a welcome change we do not see Yuri doing the talk

Another five test launches of Bulava naval-based missile ahead – expert

There will be another five test launches of the Bulava naval-based strategic missile, General Director of the Moscow Thermal Technology Institute Sergei Nikulin said at the Friday meeting, which marked the Institute’s 65th anniversary.

“There will be another five test launches done from the new nuclear-powered missile carrying submarine The Yuri Dolgoruki,” he said. “The work must be successful. We are optimistic about the future.”

“The quality of missiles is a priority,” Nikulin said. “The correctness of the missile design was confirmed with the previous test launches.”

[Austin]

They and NPO-MASH oriinally lobbied the heavy ICBM in 2007 - http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2007-06-08/6_rockets.html
http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/archive/1367/1367602.htm
a different design from what MoD chose apparently..

May be NPO-MASH thought they were logical successor to develop a heavy ICBM as any one would think , may be Makeyev came with better ideas and gave the same techno/economic advantage that it had to develop a new liquid fuel missile , certainly an existing production base that can make new ICBM with little conversion and so far an enviable record of R-29R/RM would boost its credibility.

We will be better informed if some designer from Makayev talks and hopefully is as talkative as Yuri is so we can hear him more

[pythp3]

I wonder what made the decision to switch to Makeyev.
The missile until now was to be made by Mash with Yuzmash cooperation. The plan was to make a "new version" of the Satan, by recycling some of it´s stages, simple and logical. But why was that rejected? A Makeyev design will not be based on older one, I suppose, and that should be more complex, plus, I do not think it will be as powerfull.

Speculating only. But I want to believe there was a good technical reason, not just "politics" on personal benefit.

[Andy_UA]

Finally and a welcome change we do not see Yuri doing the talk

I find this awesome - http://www.rg.ru/2011/05/06/bulava-anons.html
"Bulava" launches will be streamed live on new multimedia MoD website

[artjomh]

They will be contractors, but the more work will be done by NPO-MASH and CSKB samara imho....
They and NPO-MASH oriinally lobbied the heavy ICBM in 2007 - http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2007-06-08/6_rockets.html
http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/archive/1367/1367602.htm
a different design from what MoD chose apparently..

Interesting story. The lobbying to develop Sineva-2 ( Sineva redesign to fit Bulava tubes) is funny.

However, I liked the detail about ~100 Sineva missiles manufactured between 2004 and 2007. That is a complete arsenal for all 6 Project 667BDRM submarines (16 *6 = 96). I am also guessing that they are still manufacturing more missiles for trial launches.

[Austin]

What is the status of Lada submarine project , do they plan to cancel this class of sub due to its never ending problem and build modified kilo ?

[Khathi]

However, I liked the detail about ~100 Sineva missiles manufactured between 2004 and 2007. That is a complete arsenal for all 6 Project 667BDRM submarines (16 *6 = 96). I am also guessing that they are still manufacturing more missiles for trial launches.

Exeter at VIF2NE maintains that for the service life of the boats two full reloads are required, because by his calculations the retirement rate of the currently installed missiles would mean that they will expire shortly, but I'm in doubts about this.

[artjomh]

Exeter at VIF2NE maintains that for the service life of the boats two full reloads are required, because by his calculations the retirement rate of the currently installed missiles would mean that they will expire shortly, but I'm in doubts about this.

There are no "currently installed missiles". The old R-29RM were all retired when the submarines were sent for overhaul. The only submarine which still had original missiles until now was Verhoturye, which was overhauled, but didn't get new missiles since the new missile wasn't ready then.

Sineva (which is almost identical to R-29RM) is the new production. The manufacturing began in 2004 and several submarines have already been rearmed. Ekaterinburg, Tula and Bryansk are confirmed to have full loads of new missiles.

Karelia and Novomoskovsk still haven't conducted trial Sineva launches, but it is highly likely that they already have a full missile complement waiting for them (if the story about 100 missiles in 2004-2007 is correct). Verhoturye, the last Delta IV, has began its second overhaul recently, so it is very likely that when it returns to service, it will also have a full load of new production missiles.

Krasmash will probably need to manufacture additional numbers over the spec 96 missiles, for regular trial launches (perhaps +15-20%), but if they managed 100 missiles in 2004-2007, it is highly likely that in 2008-2011 they have completed manufacturing the entire arsenal (96 missiles for submarines + buffer).

What is the status of Lada submarine project , do they plan to cancel this class of sub due to its never ending problem and build modified kilo ?

It hasn't been shelved officially, but it is clearly in dire straights.

The first submarine is still commissioned only on trial basis. Until its engine troubles have not been resolved, there will probably be no new Ladas beyond the first three.

[Austin]

Ampulized liquid fuels have been around forever. Missiles get fueled once at the factory and that's it.

So you mean Sineva gets fulled once in the factory and are sealed in tubes and then they never get defuelled when they are in Subs ?

What if there is leak or emergencies how do they defuel it ?

[Austin]

Russia eyes high-speed helicopters
Russia to start Mi-38 production in 2013 after PW127 engine supply resolved


PS: Flight Global has got their stats wrong on Mi-38 , it can carry 6T of internal payload/passenger and 7 Ton of external/under-sling payload.

[Austin]

The first submarine is still commissioned only on trial basis. Until its engine troubles have not been resolved, there will probably be no new Ladas beyond the first three.

I have read in balancer forum iirc that the Engine problem stands resolved , it is the sonar problem that giving them the pain so much so they are redesigning the whole thing.

Recently they had stated that they are working on AIP conventional subs as well.

But the fact that they are building a slightly modified 636 subs ( 636-03 ) means they do not want to fully bet on ladas future.

I suspect if they cannot resolve Lada issue and cant offer a effective/proven AIP solution , it certainly wont win Indian Navy 2nd line sub program that Amur 1650 is betting on for export success

[Austin]

Shipyard workers call for end to 'scapegoat' court martial in Nerpa case