Posted on 10/03/2009 4:37:30 PM PDT by sonofstrangelove
Russia has told the developers of the new Bulava SLBM (Sea Launched Ballistic Missile) that they have until the end of the year to make the missile work. Otherwise, the project will be cancelled, heads will roll (OK, people will be fired) and the older R-29RM Sineva SLBM will replace the Bulava. It's already been suggested that the 40 ton R-29RM be used in the new Borei SSBNs. Sineva is the last liquid fuel Russian SLBM in service, and is used in the current Delta class SSBNs.
Liquid fuel missiles are more complex than solid fuel missiles, even though they use fuel that can be stored for long periods inside the missile. Russia continued to use liquid fuel SLBMs for so long because large solid fuel rocket motors are actually large, carefully shaped, blocks of slow burning explosives. These motors are very difficult to make, and it was only near the end of the Cold War that Russia finally mastered the technique. But only one solid fuel SLBM entered service, the huge, 90 ton R-39, for the massive Typhoon SSBNs (which are being retired because they were so expensive to operate.)
Many Russian officials fear that the root of all these problems is the flight of so many skilled engineers and scientists from Russian defense industries after the Soviet Union collapsed (and sales promptly dropped over 90 percent). The smart people quickly found lucrative jobs in other industries, and there has been little new blood in the last two decades. The same thing happened on the manufacturing end. During the Soviet period, defense industries had the cash to attract the most skilled manufacturing staff. No more. And the dismal Bulava test performance is yet another result of this brain drain
(Excerpt) Read more at strategypage.com ...
“...heads will roll (OK, people will be fired)...”
No, this is Russia, heads really will roll!
And the US NVER had a liquid-fueled SLBM. As far back as the first Polaris missiles of about 1960 or so...—they were solid fuel!! Our guys KNEW how dangerous storable liquid fuels, AKA Hypergolic fuels, would be on a sub.
So...the russkies are BEHIND the US evidently, in SLBM technology?? Still using liquid fuel missiles?? no doubt still having to be launched from the SURFACE??
Had we had a decent leader and still the drive for military might we did 20 years or so ago...the US could have developed SLBM’s that were SO accurate...the warheads could go down a CHIMNEY, from 5000 miles away!! As it is..our Trident III’s are VERY accurate—to about 300 feet, from about 4500 miles away.
Interesting. Bump.
My thought exactly. I’m thinking Putin tends to handle failure in a manner similar to Darth Vader...
Very few know what the word means. I know a gent who has a patent (probably now expired) for Hypergolic Fuel Injection for piston engines. It was and is potentially very dangerous, but had zero emissions....
very interesting....
Borey means Boreas, the Greek god of the North wind.
Sineva means blue.
Topol means poplar.
Many Russian officials fear that the root of all these problems is the flight of so many skilled engineers and scientists from Russian defense industries after the Soviet Union collapsed (and sales promptly dropped over 90 percent). The smart people quickly found lucrative jobs in other industries, and there has been little new blood in the last two decades. The same thing happened on the manufacturing end. During the Soviet period, defense industries had the cash to attract the most skilled manufacturing staff. No more. And the dismal Bulava test performance is yet another result of this brain drain...
Firing is comprised of a one-way ticket to the Lubyanka.
I had a bulova watch once...
What, Obama's going to present their Olympic bid too?
Cheers!
No wonder that is a Watch Company.\s
I cannot believe that the Russians would use a liquid fuel rocket on the submarines. The Nazis during WWII knew that putting V2 rockets would be suicide.
It appears to me that while the Russians “were” ahead of the US in SOME ways—such as being able to build huge H-bombs that could totally wipe out a small state(the Tsar bomba, yield 50-100+mt), in MANY other ways—particularly hi-tech...they are BEHIND us. Russia still seems to use the “brute force” method, of dong things,as those who know about their planes and ships could attest to. Old, SUPER outdated control systems, “steam gauge” instruments, and a pretty much “no frills” attitude” to their whole outlook on things. Using hypergolically fueled missiles, ( a BIG “recipe for a BIG disaster” on a sub, which HAS happened to them before..as hypergolic fuels and oxidizers do NOT react too kindly to water...) in the 21st century is not out of their character.
There are some estimates that less than HALF of all of their missiles, warplanes and subs would be ready for battle with US.
Still, even 5% of them “working” would be a huge disaster for US.
My first thought was that Obama was going to travel to Russia. How nice of them to prepare for him...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.