The new submarine-launched ballistic missile is expected to enter service in 2009 along with the new submarine designed to carry this missile, the Borei-class Project 955 nuclear-powered undersea cruiser Yury Dolgoruky.

It is nevertheless clear that the Bulava, also known as R-30 in the Russian navy, 3M30 in the Main Missile/Artillery Directorate of the Defense Ministry, RSM-56 on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty --START -- SS-NX-30 NATO designation -- hasn't met expectations so far, with four of the seven test launches failing and the last one "partly successful," according to official reports.

Specialists name a number of reasons for the trouble, which occurred in different phases of the missile's flight, from the first minutes after the launch to the warhead dispensing, which indicates that the missile's components need further improvement. The initial cause is said to be that the Bulava development project was handed over to the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology, which had never dealt in sea-based missiles.

The Bulava's defects probably can be eradicated, but this would take up to three years and 12 to 14 test launches, and therefore delay the entering into service of the Project 955 submarines, weakening Russia's strategic nuclear force, as seven Project 667BDR ballistic missile submarines will be decommissioned until the middle of the next decade. The latter were earlier scheduled to be gradually replaced by Project 955 submarines.

Meanwhile, the Russian navy maintains the 667BDRM submarines built in the late 1990s and early 1990s and currently undergoing repairs and upgrades, with R-29RM missiles being replaced by R-29RMU2 Sineva submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The recent successful test-firing at a record distance of 9,625 miles proved the high potential of the Makeyev Design Bureau, traditionally specializing in ballistic missile development.

As for the Sineva and Bulava SLBM missiles, it is clear that switching the naval missiles' development to the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology had been a mistake. The dubious advantage of unification with Topol-M land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, which in fact is impossible, either in size, weight or appearance, set the development back years and led to huge spending, which is not sure to produce any significant effect. The Bulava's only advantage over Sineva is a shorter boost phase, which makes enemy interception more difficult.

The Sineva, however, has a significant advantage in throw-weight at 6,160 pounds compared with the Bulava's 2,530 pounds and is also fitted with a more advanced penetration system. Additionally, a longer range of fire enables the submarines to stay far away from U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization naval and anti-submarine aircraft bases.

A possible solution is to modernize the already afloat Yury Dolgoruky and its sister ships still in production and to equip them with Sineva SLBM missiles, whose diameter allows them to be fired from Bulava silos. The Sineva SLBM, however, is longer, which would require slightly higher silo enclosures installed.

A more serious obstacle could be that the Bulava SLBM is launched via a "dry start" with solid-state pressure accumulators, while the Sineva requires a preliminary filling of the launch tube with off-board waters.

This problem could be solved, however. Some sources say the Makeyev Design Bureau has developed a Sineva version that uses the "dry start" technology. If this version passes tests in the near future, the first Project 955 submarine armed with Sineva SLBMs could enter service in 2010.

Another advantage of the Sineva is its production maturity, enabling the manufacturer to launch its production fast and therefore replace the Project 667BDR submarines in time.

It is probably time to rectify mistakes.

(Ilya Kramnik is a military commentator for RIA Novosti. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

Share This Article With Planet Earth

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Related Links
Naval Warfare in the 21st Century