Military Review

Homeland Shield: just need to sift factory marriage. About the future of Bulava

88
Homeland Shield: just need to sift factory marriage. About the future of Bulava



Two good news РѕС‚РµС З РµСЃС‚РІРµРЅРЅРѕРіРѕ РїРѕРґРІРѕРґРЅРѕРіРѕ fleet came the other day almost simultaneously. The third nuclear submarine missile carrier of the latest 955th project (Borey) K-551 "Vladimir Monomakh" first went to sea for factory sea trials. And the first - K-535 "Yuri Dolgoruky" - arrived at the place of permanent basing in Gadzhievo. This news could inspire pride and confidence - after all, updating the composition of the carriers of marine intercontinental ballistic missiles is an urgent need. Strategic missile submarines (RPKSN), built during the Soviet era, should give way to the formation of new ships. The terms of their operation cannot be supported indefinitely. And to replace the boats that are serving, now a series of ten Boreas is being built.

However, the accident at the launch of the Bulava ballistic missile from onboard the Alexander Nevsky K-550 (the second submarine of the series) questioned the entire program of updating the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces. P-30 "Bulava" - the main thing weapon "Boreev". For the sake of this weapon they were created. But when the reliability of this weapon is not guaranteed, the combat value of the Bulava carriers, Boreas-type submarines, is also in doubt.

No other missiles can equip these boats. Firstly, because the missiles themselves and their carriers, submarines, are only parts of the most complex strategic missile complex. "Boreas" in their current form were created for the D-30 complex, including the Bulava missiles. Secondly, because we simply do not have other marine complexes. The updated D-9 complex with the R-29РМУ 2 ("Sineva") and Р-29РМУ 2.1 ("Liner") missiles was created for the modernization of the 667BDR and 667BDRM submarines, which can remain in service only until they are replaced by "Boreas". The D-19 complex with the P-39 missiles of various modifications, contrary to popular belief, was not an alternative to the Bulava. It was created for the huge (the largest submarines in the world) SSXN project 941 "Shark". And its “extreme” version (with the Bark R-XNUMHUTTH rocket) was conceived as a temporary measure for the modernization of the Sharks, until new missiles and their new carriers appeared. Today, there is neither the D-39 complex, nor the missile carriers of this complex - the SSBN of the 19 project (more here). Work on other promising complexes was curtailed in the late 941-x and early 80-s. Thus, the only complex that can in the foreseeable future become the basis of naval strategic nuclear forces is the D-90 complex, which includes the Bulava missiles and their carriers, boats of the 30 project.

Complex D-30 was created really difficult. The first draft versions of the rocket appeared in 1992, when the Moscow Institute of Thermal Engineering (MIT), on its own initiative, continued to work out the most promising projects that were closed during the times of the so-called. adjustment. However, the right to life, these works received only in 1998 year. And the circumstances, as a result of which MIT took up the design of a new, sea-based ICBM, to this day serve as the basis for criticism of the Bulava. All unsuccessful launches (9 from 19) are associated precisely with the wrong choice of the developer, who did not develop ballistic missiles for submarines (hereinafter referred to as SLBM) before Bulava.

However, in reality it was much more complicated. In the USSR, SLBMs were developed by the SRC them. Academician V.P. Makeev (previously - CKB-385). In the USSR, there was a logical and reasonable program, in which the order of development of naval strategic nuclear forces was defined both at the 1990 and at the beginning of the 2000. It provided for the creation of two new missile systems (D-31 and D-35) and their two carriers - boats of the 955 and 935 projects (Borey-1 and Borey-2, respectively). Both complex was to develop GRTS them. Makeev. But “perestroika” made its own changes to these plans. The new D-35 complex and the Boreas-2 were abandoned in 1989 year. And the problems with the creation of the D-31 complex dragged on until the middle of 90-x, which led to the closure of all work and to the urgent redesign of the Borea-1 under the temporary, “shark” complex of the D-XNUMHUTH Bark complex. The first boat was laid only in 19 year.

But "Boreas" was not destined to carry and "Barki". Another resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR from 28 in November 1988 was the order of tests of the complex and the re-equipment of "Sharks". "Sevmorzavod" (Sevastopol) was instructed to prepare a submersible PS-65M launch complex for missile tests at the Balaklava range and a pilot SSRB of 619 Ave. for testing. The engines of the first stage for the “Bark” were to be produced by the Yuzhnoye Production Association (Dnepropetrovsk). After Ukraine’s withdrawal from the USSR, the production of the X-NUMX-th stage of the P-1 missiles and a number of other components ceased. The Pavlograd chemical plant, which produced fuel for rockets, began producing household chemicals. The rocket had to be redesigned. The test launches were transferred to the Severodvinsk Nenoks test site and were carried out from a land-based rather than a submersible stand. All three test launches (39, 1993 and 1994 years) were unsuccessful. And the latter - led to damage to the buildings of the landfill, because the rocket exploded at the start.

Perhaps, sooner or later, "Bark" and managed to bring to mind. The engines of all three stages were to be manufactured at Iskra (Perm), where they are now building engines for the Bulava. Then, the newest Borey SSBNs, instead of a new complex, would receive a good, but only a deeply modernized version of the old one. In addition, the "alien" and conceived as a temporary measure. And in the production of missiles of this complex, Russia would be dependent on a very close, but different state, in which accession to NATO is sometimes seriously discussed. But this did not happen. And in the autumn of 1998, the Commander in Chief of the Navy, Vladimir Kuroyedov, proposed to the Security Council that the topic “Bark” be officially closed, which was done. And already laid "Borey" was waiting for another rocket.

In the new competition for the main weapon for the boats of the 955 project, the SRC them. Makeeva participated with the Bulava-45 project, based on the Bark, and MIT offered his work under the designation Bulava-30. Both projects had solid fuel engines. The figures "45" and "30" denoted the conditional starting weight in tons. The MIT project had many components unified with terrestrial complexes developed at the institute (in particular with RT-2PM Topol). Unification promised a reduction in the cost of production and maintenance of the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy. Moreover, the failures with the D-31 and Bark complexes were still too fresh. SRC lost the competition. And Borei redesigned for the third time under new missiles.

A series of unsuccessful launches of the Bulava already had a loud resonance. Contrary to popular belief, it was not the developer’s choice that was to blame for such a difficult test cycle, but the removal from support of the work of the 28 Marine Central Research Institute of the Russian Ministry of Defense, as well as the decision to abandon the traditional rocket test launches from the submersible stands. Nonetheless, today the Bulava R-30 SLBM is a fully prepared and adopted weapon. And the carrier of this weapon, which was noted as an unsuccessful launch of a rocket, —Alexander Nevsky’s SSBN — was successfully tested. There are no complaints to the boat, the ship launch complex has worked in a regular way.

“Excuse me, what's the matter, if the missiles are good, and the submarines too?” - this is the question that any sensible person must ask.

But the fact is that the industry was not ready to issue a stable quality of serial products. The termination of the flight of the rocket took place at the site where the second stage began to work, which automatically means a question about the quality of the work of the Iskra NGO. And what's more, military acceptance managed to miss the missiles with a defect, which indicates, to put it mildly, a frivolous approach to business.

Now it will result in the return of the entire batch of already manufactured missiles to the Votkinsk plant for complete verification. As well as the delayed transfer of the fleet of two boats of the type "Borey". Well, five additional test launches, which Sergei Shoigu demanded, are not needed to make sure that the new missile system is adopted correctly. There are no doubts in his fighting qualities, which has been proven by many times successful launches. Additional launches are needed to ensure that citizens are convinced: the quality of the “Shield of the Motherland” is again under control.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.odnako.org/blogs/show_28493/
88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Dangerous
    Dangerous 17 September 2013 15: 26 New
    0
    "And to replace the boats that are serving, now a series of ten Boreas is being built."

    So how many boats will there be - 8 or 10 ???
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 17 September 2013 15: 51 New
      14
      Quote: Author Alexander Gorbenko
      It is impossible to equip these boats with any other missiles.


      I absolutely agree with the author.

      Bulava still has a competitor in the fleet. This is a family of liquid carriers R-29R / RM, the most modern of which is the R-29RMU2 Sineva for project 667BDRM boats developed by the Miass Design Bureau Makeev.
      However, the fleet has no new carriers for these missiles yet.
      most likely will be gone. The new Boreas are designed to use the twelve-meter Mace. A Miass product with a length of 14,7 meters will not fit into the current boat if you do not build on it a classic and well-known “hump” that appeared during the evolution of the Project 667 missile carrier family as they were equipped with more advanced (and more overall) SLBM systems. And then only if such a rework is generally technically possible and will be recognized justified in terms of combat use and the economy.

      "Mace": range 8000 km, weight 36,8 tons, cast weight (ie payload) - 1150 kg. "Sineva": range 8300 km, weight 40,3 tons, cast weight - 2800 kg. That is, with almost the same range and weight, the “Sineva” surpasses the “Mace” in throwing weight by 2,6 times. Actually, this is the most "energy-efficient" SLBM in the world.
      In addition, the “Blue” has a number of noteworthy options. Thus, the use of correction by the signals of navigation satellites provides accuracy comparable to the accuracy of the American Tridents. We’ll also add the ability to fly along “flexible” and different paths (to the minimum, intermediate and maximum range), the ability to arbitrarily deploy warheads, as well as expanded combat use conditions due to the possibility of using high latitudes of the Arctic (you can even shoot from the North Pole, as the Ekaterinburg missile carrier did in September 2006) the rocket was with a satellite. The satellite is designed to study the radiation belts of the earth and cosmic rays, monitor and predict earthquakes and technological disasters

      On December 29, 2011, K-84 Yekaterinburg caught fire. At the time of the fire, there was nuclear stock on board. It was possible to completely eliminate the fire on December 30, 2011, the repair will amount to more than 500 million rubles and should be completed in 2014.
      1. I think so
        I think so 17 September 2013 16: 09 New
        28
        A small inaccuracy in your comment - “Sineva” and “Liner” can fly to a range of 11 thousand km. Further, the “Bulava” IN PRINCIPLE cannot fly short distances, and Sineva can perform “dagger” attacks from a distance of 500-600 km from the target. In general, it is seen that the “new” Bulava missile is MUCH worse than the old and tested by the launches and time of the Sineva. So what? Replacing a bull with a turkey? No - DIRECTED DISARMAMENT OF RUSSIA ... Take at least this vaunted automated missile launch complex ... it’s an ordinary diversion ... you can launch a rocket ONLY from ONE center ... And as a result, if there is a mess in this center or it is already gone, then NO rocket launches ...
        1. Russ69
          Russ69 17 September 2013 16: 17 New
          +8
          Quote: I think so
          Take at least this vaunted automated missile launch complex ... it’s an ordinary diversion ... you can launch a rocket ONLY from ONE center ...

          This is an additional opportunity when the center can simultaneously launch a salvo with all boats., Which reduces the launch time, the boat also has the ability to launch.
          1. alone
            alone 17 September 2013 20: 32 New
            +2
            and if the center is already incapacitated? nothing can be ruled out in military affairs
          2. vladkavkaz
            vladkavkaz 17 September 2013 21: 23 New
            -2
            Russ69
            I understand that all zapuskskir, including from the BATTLE boats, already have a basis for use, reincarnation-58 articles.
            It is clear that liberalashiza demebilocracy will be against an OBJECTIVE investigation.
            1. Theophanes
              Theophanes 17 September 2013 22: 08 New
              +2
              Who would doubt it! Look what you want, objective !! Serdyuki and K will do everything to ruin everything. Destruction of military tricks will result in the launch of the Bulava. And there will be no trial of these “patriots” of Russia! It does not sink.
        2. Nitup
          Nitup 17 September 2013 16: 35 New
          10
          Quote: I think so
          Further, the “Mace” IN PRINCIPLE cannot fly at short distances, and Sineva can perform “dagger” attacks from a distance of 500-600 km from the target

          A very dubious statement. It is doubtful that Sineva can fly such short distances. Is there a link, or did you take part in the developer of Sineva and Mace?
          In general, it is seen that the “new” Bulava missile is MUCH worse than the old and tested by the launches and time of the Sineva. So what? Replacing a bull with a turkey? No - TARGETED DISARMAMENT

          If nevertheless you are not the developer of these missiles, then you would be shy to make such high-profile statements based on data from open sources. New missiles, new weapons in general, are always being made taking into account what they will confront at this time and in the future, and also taking into account the possibility of modernization. If in order to ensure guaranteed defeat of the enemy in any scenario, only 1 kg of throwing mass is enough, then 1 kg must be done. And on the basis of open data, it is erroneous to match secret weapons seriously or seriously.
        3. Vadivak
          Vadivak 17 September 2013 16: 49 New
          +5
          Quote: I think so
          So what? Replacing a bull with a turkey?


          No. There is information that measures are being implemented on Mace, which are not available on Sinev - for the future, for example, it is better to overcome the Mace of the Mace. (3: 1) Based on open information, Bulava has more warheads than Sineva.

          Quote: I think so
          A small inaccuracy in your comment - “Sineva” and “Liner” can fly to a range of 11 thousand km.

          This is the real range I indicated stated. The mace can also fly beyond 8000 but does not fly yet. But it is important here that if the range of Sineva allows you to enter the USA from anywhere in the Barents Sea, then the range of the Mace is not.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 17 September 2013 17: 11 New
            +5
            Quote: Vadivak
            Based on open information, Bulava has more warheads than Sineva.
            Pretty weird information. Especially, taking into account the fact that the cast weight of Sineva is significantly greater. So the question here is not a missile, but its warhead. With such a mass reserve, it is possible to equip Sineva even abruptly with Clubs wink
            1. rolik
              rolik 17 September 2013 21: 47 New
              +3
              Quote: Misantrop
              Pretty weird information. Especially, taking into account the fact that the cast weight of Sineva is significantly greater.

              That's right, Bulava: range 8000 km, weight 36,8 tons, cast weight (i.e. payload) - 1150 kg. "Sineva": range 8300 km, weight 40,3 tons, cast weight - 2800 km. That is, with almost the same range and weight, the “Sineva” surpasses the “Mace” in throwing weight by 2,6 times. Actually, this is the most "energy-efficient" SLBM in the world. In addition, the "Sineva" has a number of noteworthy options. Thus, the use of correction by the signals of navigation satellites provides accuracy comparable to the accuracy of the American Tridents. We’ll add the ability to fly along “flexible” and different paths (to the minimum, intermediate and maximum range), the ability to randomly deploy warheads, as well as expanded combat use conditions due to the possibility of using high latitudes of the Arctic (you can even shoot from the North Pole, which was done by the Yekaterinburg missile carrier in September 2006. However, to my great chagrin, in the foreseeable future, SLBMs may encounter anti-missile defense at the time of launch. Unfortunately, in this situation the “classic” SLBMs really have no future - it belongs quasiballistic missiles, which Bulava was supposed to be (more precisely, its advanced version is Bulava-M). True, there are certain possibilities for the quasiballistic transformation of Sineva, but this is a slightly different story and if anyone has to write it , then only Makeevtsy)))))
          2. demeen1
            demeen1 18 September 2013 08: 25 New
            0
            I recently read an article about the mace here, so all the parameters of the Mace are practically classified and several people know about them. And the fact that it does not fly one hundred percent is another question that lies in the plane of industry and finance
            1. rolik
              rolik 18 September 2013 09: 02 New
              0
              Quote: demeen1
              I recently read an article about the mace here, so all the parameters of the Mace are practically classified and several people know about them.

              The real characteristics of the complexes are state-of-the-art and carefully guarded, but at the same time, the parties that signed the strategic offensive arms exchange telemetry and the characteristics of the missiles are known to the opposing side with high accuracy. Only what is officially declared by the parties under the strategic offensive arms falls into open access. The numbers for RSM-54 (Sineva) and RSM-56 (Bulava) are announced under the START treaty according to completely different criteria for calculating the weight to be thrown! RSM-54 refers to the contract as an “existing type”, and RSM-56 refers to a “new type”. By the way, the Tridents also apply to the existing type and comparing them with the Bulava is not correct.
              Therefore, the given data on the range and throwing weights are naturally approximate. If I had suddenly given real numbers, which I naturally don’t know, then in the morning I would have sat on a hard chair and nervously fidgeted under the piercing gaze of a person with an inconspicuous face)))))) My wife already says that I will finish my work soon and come to me people in black))))))))
              1. demeen1
                demeen1 18 September 2013 10: 51 New
                0
                if only for plagiarism, and so people in black are not interested in you
        4. Misantrop
          Misantrop 17 September 2013 17: 07 New
          +7
          Quote: I think so
          Slight inaccuracy in your comment
          And one more inaccuracy, in the picture - my "K-64", so I somehow recognize it wink
          1. Vadivak
            Vadivak 17 September 2013 17: 27 New
            +1
            Quote: Misantrop
            And one more inaccuracy, in the picture - my "K-64", so I somehow recognize it

            Did you serve at Ryazan?
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 17 September 2013 17: 32 New
              10
              Quote: Vadivak
              Did you serve at Ryazan?
              No, Ryazan is the K-44 of the 667 BDR project. I started on the main BDR ("K-441), and continued on the" K-64 "667 BDRM (3rd building of the series). It is he in this photo
              1. Vadivak
                Vadivak 17 September 2013 18: 10 New
                +4
                Quote: Misantrop
                No, Ryazan is K-44


                According to the author of the photo - in the picture Ryazan. That's why I asked. But God with him you probably know better. By the way, I mentioned that your boat is in the photo. And how do you distinguish boats of the same series? Are there subjective differences?
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 17 September 2013 18: 18 New
                  +9
                  Quote: Vadivak
                  Are there subjective differences?
                  Of course have. In this case, it is a nose fairing fairing, the so-called “butterfly”. She was crushed when we ascended to an ice floe. Oh, how much effort I spent in my time to restore it with PRZ forces (before and after that, PRZ specialists shouted in chorus that this kind of repair was physically impossible with their forces) lol If you look closely, you can see that it consists of two separate pieces. Established - one-piece.

                  And to distinguish the BDRM from the BDR is very simple - the "skirt" of the rocket fairing protruding beyond the edge of the hull, without ventilation holes. The BDR does not have such a feature, but there are three rows of ventilation grilles (because of which it was nicknamed the "prison of peoples") lol
              2. Nitup
                Nitup 17 September 2013 18: 28 New
                0
                This photo is more like a drawing than a photo.
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 17 September 2013 18: 48 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Nitup
                  This photo is more like a drawing than a photo.
                  However, this is just a photo. And here is the picture. Drawn by our Simferopol artist from photography. He did not serve on the Premier League, so there are a number of inaccuracies in the contours
        5. starshina78
          starshina78 17 September 2013 20: 10 New
          +1
          Most likely, the institute of heat engineering, the developer of Bulava, was closer to the person who gave “Welcome!” To the development of the complex for “Boreev”. This person could be a relative, friend, or maybe it was just bought. After all, creating a rocket is a lot of money, and you can always pinch off that money.
        6. rolik
          rolik 17 September 2013 21: 24 New
          +1
          Quote: I think so
          . And as a result, if there is a mess in this center or it is already gone, then there are NO missile launches

          You are comparing two different rockets, liquid and solid fuel. Naturally, a liquid rocket has a much higher energy intensity. And to be honest, I would choose Sineva. Maybe I have outdated views on life. Unfortunately, so much money has already been swollen in Bulava that they are simply afraid to retreat, although this would be a normal move. But uncles in uniform and with high posts are very afraid of getting their own epaulettes and posts, so there will be no reverse move.
          Although the media can, if desired, be redone along the Blue. The diameter of the "Blue" allows you to use it from the mines intended for the "Mace". True, the “Sineva” has a slightly longer length, but this is not an insurmountable obstacle. The difference in starts may become a more serious obstacle - the Bulava starts from a dry mine, and before the start of the Sineva mine needs to be filled with water. Design Makeev’s design bureau developed the “Sineva” version for a “dry start”. So there is a chance to rebuild it under the "Blue". And one more important plus of Sineva. It has been tested and can be quickly installed on new missile carriers. At the same time, there would be little delay in changing generations of technical equipment in the fleet.
          1. Nitup
            Nitup 17 September 2013 23: 04 New
            0
            You forget one important advantage of TT missiles - greater thrust-to-weight ratio than VT. Therefore, Bulava’s OUT is shorter, which is important in terms of overcoming missile defense.
            1. rolik
              rolik 18 September 2013 00: 51 New
              +2
              Quote: Nitup
              You forget one important advantage of TT missiles - greater thrust-to-weight ratio,

              The denser the solid fuel and the greater the volume of gases generated during its combustion, the higher the specific thrust, but the higher the pressure in the combustion chamber, and in a turbojet engine the combustion chamber is the whole engine block! The entire hull must withstand tremendous internal pressure, which dramatically affects the mass excellence of the rocket design. A further increase in pressure is impossible without creating a material superior in specific strength to aramid fiber. There are special steels with greater specific strength, but as a material for the case they are not suitable for technological reasons - it is impossible to form a thin-walled case of the required dimension from them. Aramid or aromatic polyamide, this is the well-known “Kevlar” and its domestic counterpart “SVM” with a strength of not more than 4,2 GPa, as well as the little-known “Rusar-S” (the third generation of domestic super-threads) with a strength of 6,2 GPa. However, even if Rusar-S is surpassed, it is not significant, since the theoretical limit of aramid is now estimated at 6,7-7,0 GPa, which is clearly not enough to create a “one stage - the first space” rocket.
              For a pure turbojet engine, the mass of the engine casing is the biggest drawback. It is no coincidence that missiles with the same parameters in range and casting weight have two stages in the case of rocket engines, and already three in the case of turbojet engines. It is for this reason that missiles with turbojet engines are still losing to missiles with liquid propellant rocket engines, despite the fact that mixed fuels are already very close to the UI of the AT + UDMH pair. A rocket with such parameters (one step to the second space) and with a clean turbojet engine is not yet possible. There are developments in various hybrid schemes in many countries, but even that is at the stage of small bench models. In the USSR, two high-speed missiles for short-range missile defense were created. These are 53T6 systems A-135 and 9M82 systems S-300V, on both are turbojet engines created in the Kazan OKB-16. These engines are champions in acceleration characteristics, but even they did not accelerate the rocket to the first space one.
              It is possible to make a short fuel oil out, but the engine will turn out to be excessively heavy and with the same full weight, the cast weight will suffer greatly. At the same time, for a solid-fuel rocket, the thrust profile varies with time practically for nothing --- by changing the cross section of the fuel charge. Peak traction is limited “only” by the strength of the hull.
              Noah did not say that the mace is complete garbage. I said that I, personally, like Sineva (Liner) more, that I can remake the carrier for them with not very big blood. And what high rankings will get on the cap for draining money for an unfinished rocket, in the case of a proposal to refuse it, and so it is obvious))))) In the mattress it would be the same, only they would not advertise it much.
      2. rereture
        rereture 17 September 2013 23: 05 New
        0
        thrown weight - 2800 kg


        Thrown weight is a loose concept, since about 70% of thrown weight goes to false targets, mock warheads (even with an engine), aluminum strips, and so on, which makes it possible to mask a warhead.
    2. Nitup
      Nitup 17 September 2013 15: 59 New
      +1
      Dangerous RU Today, 15:26
      "And to replace the boats that are serving, now a series of ten Boreas is being built."

      So how many boats will there be - 8 or 10 ???

      According to the 2020 program, it seems to be 8. They say that after 20 years they will rivet, and how many - hell knows. I think no more than 10 in general will be. Unless, of course, they are not going to focus on the NSLF, like the United States. 10 boats - this is 160 missiles, each with 6 (?) Warheads, then this is a total
      960 blocks. According to the START-3 treaty, it is permitted to have 1550 BB. 1550-960 = 590 blocks for the entire ground and air component of the strategic nuclear forces. 590 - approximately 45 strategic bombers = 545 blocks for the Strategic Missile Forces. Not much, considering that they are going to create heavy mine rockets with 10 blocks. I don’t know how all this will correspond with the START Treaty. Maybe there will be 3-4 blocks on the Mace, maybe
      something else.
      1. Hitrovan07
        Hitrovan07 17 September 2013 17: 33 New
        +4
        And Russia may withdraw from the START-3 treaty.
        1. Nitup
          Nitup 17 September 2013 18: 17 New
          +3
          Quote: Hitrovan07
          And Russia may withdraw from the START-3 treaty.

          Maybe, but for now we don’t need it and it’s not profitable
    3. vladkavkaz
      vladkavkaz 17 September 2013 20: 56 New
      0
      Dangerous
      My friend fell once, two fell, three fell, fell a fourth time
      -who is to blame --- PUPKIN?
      Uh no, the concrete performer is always to blame.
      The one who signed the contract, do not understand with whom.
      The one who confirmed the contract, do not understand with whom.
      The one who drove the money do not understand where ..
      But in the end, Article 58, it was then quite applicable.
  2. NAV-STAR
    NAV-STAR 17 September 2013 15: 27 New
    +8
    Sabotage and treason of the Motherland smacks of mace.
    1. GreatRussia
      GreatRussia 17 September 2013 15: 42 New
      +3
      Quote: NAV-STAR
      Sabotage and treason of the Motherland smacks of mace.


      Today Rogozin gave an explanation of the accident with another, "civilian" Proton missile.




      Yakov Yakovlev @yakovyakovlev 3 h
      @Rogozin Dmitry Olegovich, Good afternoon. As I understand it, "mechanical impact" - is it the fascists who want to kill us? I mean enemies?


      Dmitry Rogozin @Rogozin 3 h
      @yakovyakovlev And we can not do without "mechanical impact" on them


      More:
      https://twitter.com/Rogozin



      And to this from the report of Rogozin:

      In addition, we also investigated why this kind of the defect was missed by the factory quality control department, and it was also established that this type of operation in 2011 was removed from the list of mandatory verification operations by military acceptance. In addition to the work carried out by the interdepartmental commission of Roscosmos, our special commission also raised additional questions, in particular the question that you just said, the insurance question: why there was no property liability insurance for this launch, but only third party liability insurance persons? And the second question is also technical: why did the booster launch from the launch pad 0,4 seconds ahead of schedule? It turned out that on the third question ... It has no direct relation to the accident, but nevertheless, we carried out this kind of work: the entire technical backlog was opened, that is, all the other missiles touched by the hand of this "master", let's call it that. The investigation showed that only on this rocket launcher the sensors were installed in the wrong way, on the other rockets everything was done properly.

      http://government.ru/news/5447

      Excluded in 2011?
      Mdya Beckons Serdyukovshchina.
      1. starhina01
        starhina01 17 September 2013 19: 19 New
        +4
        the defect was missed by the factory quality control department, and it was also established that this type of operation in 2011 was removed from the list of mandatory verification operations by military acceptance. what if for this to shoot Serdyukov .V.V.P will receive a huge plus from the people what or he left it for later before choosing request
      2. rolik
        rolik 17 September 2013 21: 50 New
        +2
        Quote: GreatRussia
        Today Rogozin gave an explanation of the accident with another, "civilian" Proton missile.

        Here are just the removal of Popovkin kick in the ass is not visible. Boltology, not backed up by deeds, begins to annoy.
        1. igor.borov775
          igor.borov775 18 September 2013 04: 49 New
          +1
          Hi, It’s much harder here to take someone off or transfer it is much harder. In Vladik, Rogozin said that tidying up compromises takes a lot of time. Solving all personnel issues is the competence of only two persons of the state. Until everything is agreed to report to the President or Prime Minister is useless , The principle works there a hundred times check then cut, At the state level it is good but at the ministry level I don’t think what’s here / middle ground /,
          1. rolik
            rolik 18 September 2013 15: 38 New
            0
            Quote: igor.borov775
            Hi, it’s much more complicated.

            Greetings. It is clear that there are many pitfalls. Here are just a recent example still fresh, Predyukov removed for the day. Or Popovkin is protected before the next election))))
    2. Sirs
      Sirs 17 September 2013 17: 02 New
      0
      straight master iodine
    3. Misantrop
      Misantrop 17 September 2013 17: 59 New
      +5
      Quote: NAV-STAR
      Sabotage and treason of Motherland smack
      Rather - the stupidity and indifference of performers exclusively for receiving money, regardless of the results of work
      1. Civil
        Civil 17 September 2013 20: 13 New
        +3
        Quote: Misantrop
        Quote: NAV-STAR
        Sabotage and treason of Motherland smack
        Rather - the stupidity and indifference of performers exclusively for receiving money, regardless of the results of work

        from a nightclub it's hard to manage
      2. rolik
        rolik 17 September 2013 21: 53 New
        +3
        Quote: Misantrop
        Rather - the stupidity and indifference of performers

        The degradation of the quality control of the assembly and the quality of the finished product at the output. That’s all the reasons. Because there are no real penalties for either a ruble or a term for a marriage of such products.
  3. smel
    smel 17 September 2013 15: 31 New
    +6
    Ehhhh. How I want to believe in all the good !!! And how painfully pounding everything bad. Justification can be found throughout. You can find a reason. How to make sure not to step on the rake many times? Apparently the powers that be have no responsibility - all the switchman, but the switchman.
  4. waisson
    waisson 17 September 2013 15: 33 New
    0
    as I said, uncle VASYA screwed it incorrectly on the assembly, but if this uncle were to the wall everything would be further in ++++++++++++++++++++++++
    1. serge-68-68
      serge-68-68 17 September 2013 15: 38 New
      +9
      Found the extreme? Uncle Vasya’s bosses should be put up against the wall. And the larger the boss, the closer the wall and the larger the caliber. Then, the Maces will fly with Protons, and the Almaty will be done in time and ... (further down the list).
  5. Dmitry Zurn
    Dmitry Zurn 17 September 2013 15: 35 New
    +4
    Let us wish, finally, for all Russians to really see the Quality of the “Shield of the Motherland”. I hope all the same, we will be proud of our "Shield" in the foreseeable future.
  6. Anatole Klim
    Anatole Klim 17 September 2013 15: 42 New
    +7
    An acquaintance served in the military representative, said industry had previously allowed marriage, but military acceptance controlled the process, now acceptance, after Serdyukov’s reforms, is a miserable semblance of the Soviet one.
  7. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 17 September 2013 15: 47 New
    +1
    It’s not clear, is it really impossible to design subsequent types of missiles interchangeably, or to make launch complexes block so as not to rebuild the submarines or cut them into metal? what
    1. Locksmith
      Locksmith 17 September 2013 16: 09 New
      +2
      Quote: Black Colonel
      is it really impossible to design subsequent types of missiles interchangeably

      the designers are trying to reduce the dimensions of the rocket without compromising performance, this is important to reduce the dimensions of the boat itself — noise and overall visibility are reduced, it’s clear that old boats wear out, and that’s a vicious circle, evolution, something like that wink
    2. Max otto
      Max otto 17 September 2013 16: 13 New
      +3
      As a person familiar with classical mechanics in all its manifestations, as well as with electrical engineering and with the beginnings of electronics, I will answer: This can be done, but there will be no effect, in one case we get a flawed rocket, in the other - a bunch of excess weight and small ammunition . As they say, for a compromise you need to give up something.
    3. I think so
      I think so 17 September 2013 16: 20 New
      +3
      Everything is possible! But ... When INCOMPETENT designers take up the matter - this is the result ... With "Bulava" - design stupidity translates into a STRATEGIC DANGER. And all because the current grief of the designer, having read advertising promos from the p.i.d.do.s.so.v, was TRUSTED that solid-fuel missiles are BETTER than liquid-fuel - that's the result ... I think that " Poplar and Yars and the Mace are EXTREMELY unreliable and even dangerous products. There is no evidence of the reliability of “Topol” and “Yars”, well, with “Bulava”, it’s generally HORROR without end ... and most importantly, without ANY hope for a successful completion of this project ...
      1. Max otto
        Max otto 17 September 2013 16: 38 New
        +2
        Well, there are pros and cons, solid-fuel rockets are easier to operate by an order of magnitude (relatively fireproof and non-toxic), but they have a shorter life. I got the seditious thought in my head, in terms of servicing liquid rockets, it’s more complicated than solid-fuel ones, and even more dangerous if the Americans had liquid rockets in the service, we would listen to terrible news from there every year about accidents with victims, with that degradation technical knowledge that is now observed there (and creeps up to us).
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 17 September 2013 17: 18 New
          +3
          Quote: Max Otto
          solid fuel rockets are easier to operate by an order of magnitude (relatively fireproof and non-toxic), but they have a shorter service life. I got a seditious thought in my head, in terms of servicing, liquid rockets are more complicated than solid rockets
          All this was before liquid rockets began to be made ampoule. After that, there were NO problems with liquid rockets, and under storage conditions they are an order of magnitude more problem-free than solid-fuel rockets.
      2. Vadivak
        Vadivak 17 September 2013 17: 04 New
        +1
        Quote: I think so
        Having read the advertising bulletins from p.i.nd.so.s.so that solid propellant rockets are BETTER,


        I think that was not so. They simply decided by sharpening the already finished land Poplar quickly, and most importantly cheaply, to harbor a sea missile.

        But here there are trump cards Mace carries such exotic that it is impossible to put on Sineva in production, it has many components unified with MIT missiles.
      3. Nitup
        Nitup 17 September 2013 17: 11 New
        +3
        Quote: I think so
        I think that both Topol and Yars and Bulava are EXTREMELY unreliable and even dangerous products. There is no evidence of the reliability of “Topol” and “Yars”, well, with “Bulava”, it’s generally HORROR without end ... and most importantly, without ANY hope for a successful completion of this project ...

        Well, that’s beyond reason. The Topol line missiles are generally one of the most reliable in the WORLD. Numerous launches have proven this. Moreover, products that have been on duty for 25 years fly perfectly and do not fail. I have a feeling that you are just doing criticism for the sake of criticism and that’s it.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 17 September 2013 17: 38 New
          +3
          Quote: Nitup
          Well, that’s beyond reason. The Topol line missiles are generally one of the most reliable in the WORLD.
          Sea launch is DIRECTLY different from land. Any most reliable technique will start to fail if it is made to work for other purposes. request
          1. Nitup
            Nitup 17 September 2013 17: 54 New
            0
            Quote: Misantrop
            Sea launch is DIRECTLY different from land. Any most reliable technique will start to fail if it is made to work for other purposes.

            But the problem is not of a design character, but a production one, because more than half of the launches were successful. So the design is working.
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 17 September 2013 18: 58 New
              +3
              Quote: Nitup
              The problem is not of a design character, but of a production one, because more than half of the launches were successful.
              I am not familiar with the specific design of the rocket, but the diploma and experience of the engineer suggest that quite a few engineering solutions (in all types of activities) have so-called bottlenecks, i.e. overloaded nodes. It seems to work, but ... often breaks down. But in reality there are not so many SUCCESSFUL instances of technology on the planet. For example, take the famous "wet chicken", known to us under the name Li-2. It was not for nothing that they said about this plane that "it can only be broken, it is not capable of breaking itself." In some places in Africa they still fly
              1. Nitup
                Nitup 17 September 2013 19: 10 New
                +1
                Quote: Misantrop
                quite a few engineering solutions (in all types of activities) have so-called bottlenecks, i.e. overloaded nodes. It seems to work, but ... often breaks down.

                Yes ... maybe. Himself a process engineer by training, though the food industry smile
              2. Garrin
                Garrin 17 September 2013 19: 18 New
                +2
                Quote: Misantrop
                I am not familiar with the specific design of the rocket, but the diploma and experience of the engineer suggest that quite a few engineering solutions (in all types of activities) have so-called bottlenecks, i.e. overloaded nodes. It seems to work, but ... often breaks down

                Hi Valera!
                What interests me here. Is it possible that due to numerous accidents and malfunctions during the tests of the Bulava, a stand has not yet been developed on which all the "weak points and nodes" of the rocket would not be tested? It seems that there is no proper acceptance and they "bullet" them, like pies from the oven. Do not bake, burned, still devour. God grant that not so, but the impression is just that.
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 17 September 2013 19: 25 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Garrin
                  God grant that not so, but the impression is just that
                  So I have - too ... sad
                  And as for the stand, I have never come across information. After all, the stand is expensive and long, and they were in a hurry to report back in front of their screech ...
                  1. Garrin
                    Garrin 17 September 2013 19: 34 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    After all, the stand is expensive and long, and they were in a hurry to report back in front of their screech ...

                    Yeah. fool It would have paid off more than once.
                2. Strashila
                  Strashila 17 September 2013 20: 48 New
                  +1
                  Unlike liquid rockets ... actual solid-fuel rockets are each individual, chemistry in a word. This liquid from a batch can be poked into any engine of your choice and sent to a stand. The production of solid-fuel checkers is a delicate and not simple matter.
              3. Strashila
                Strashila 17 September 2013 20: 57 New
                +1
                A specialty code 0538 or 0539
            2. Strashila
              Strashila 17 September 2013 20: 42 New
              0
              Successful is an exception ... not the fact that the ones made according to the drawing flew.
          2. Strashila
            Strashila 17 September 2013 20: 41 New
            +1
            Moreover, it’s old not vertical, but at an angle ... there’s a completely different song. And given the difference in start, the filling should be different ... that is, the solid fuel checker should be different in design ... that is, talk about unification with Topol is simply not necessary ... she is not.
        2. andr327
          andr327 17 September 2013 20: 22 New
          +1
          Poplar rockets are reliable, no doubt. but when were they made and by whom? Where are those specialists?
    4. Misantrop
      Misantrop 17 September 2013 17: 15 New
      +2
      Quote: Black Colonel
      is it really impossible to design the subsequent types of missiles interchangeably, or make launch complexes block
      Can. A classic example is the 667 project ships. Oh, that only they didn’t put on them ...
  8. rugor
    rugor 17 September 2013 16: 05 New
    +2
    One thing is true, you need to be consistent. If you started working with a mace, then you need to bring it to the end, to failure-free operation. Rushing from side to side - only wasting resources how much in vain.
  9. Ivan Pomidorov
    Ivan Pomidorov 17 September 2013 16: 07 New
    +6
    Quote: Anatole Klim
    A friend served in the military representative, says industry used to make a marriage before, but military acceptance controlled the process, now acceptance, after Serdyukov’s reforms, a miserable semblance of Soviet


    How would it be softer to say ... the level of technical knowledge of military representatives, whom I knew at one time and handed over components and products to them, was incomparably lower than that of any engineer in our department, except for the girls on the premises (take the scheme to the tracing paper, pick up the blue from a copy, fill in TU, cut salads on NG, February 23 and March 8).
    You could suck in anything. And the higher the position of the host, the closer the theme of the banquet was to him, and not the verification of the TU points ...
    Add to this a certain charm of purely army manners ...

    But it was at the enterprise developing the new technology, at the stages of research and development
    In serial production, most likely, acceptance is an effective measure to reduce marriage.
    With a strict relationship between the quality of acceptance and the fate of the inspector.
  10. eplewke
    eplewke 17 September 2013 16: 10 New
    +2
    I think they will bring the mace to mind. Under control, tight control, take serial samples.
  11. Sirs
    Sirs 17 September 2013 16: 22 New
    +2
    I am confident in the military acceptance of almost all specialists and competent people, the situation is almost in a general marriage in everything and everywhere i.e. non-compliance with those assembly process of the node, non-compliance with those. discipline in testing the rocket assembly, failure to comply with the production schedule (ie, emergency work begins at the end of the deadline) "super efficient" middle managers (that is, beginning shops), or maybe even higher.
    The absence of any punishment for the members of the brigades, the specific guilty person for marriage (what can we say about ordinary people if no official has been punished for unsuccessful missile launches).
    Well, in general, mutual responsibility.
    1. military
      military 17 September 2013 16: 49 New
      +4
      Quote: Sirs
      I am confident in the military acceptance of almost all specialists and competent people

      there is a huge personnel failure today ...
      the last "Mohicans" from the OS of acceptance in the bulk went in 2010-2012. ... for a variety of reasons ...
      GP was "optimized" by an average of 70-80% ... specialists have already found themselves and today they don’t have a desire to return ...
      in addition, even the return to the departments of territorial air forces of the status of independent air forces (OSHM a la Shoigu) few people are happy with - everything was done “through the anus”: GPs lost an average of 2 tariff categories, “sidewalls” fell off for a significant part of the operating system ...
      my former colleague - the head of the territorial department - after gaining such independence, “lost weight” at once by 8 tariff categories and wonders, “Is there such a harmony in the ass?”
  12. Mikado
    Mikado 17 September 2013 16: 48 New
    +1
    Auto RU. I do not want to find fault with the words, but about

    "what is proven repeatedly successful launches "

    I think you got excited.
  13. rudolff
    rudolff 17 September 2013 16: 49 New
    +4
    Agitation, not analysis. The fact that the R-29RM was already outdated and required replacement was a fact. The fact that only Typhoons could carry almost a hundred-ton P-39 is also a fact. And here comes verbiage. Bark was not supposed to be a temporary replacement, but the main complex of sea-based and it was under it designed Borey, and not at all under the Mace. With almost 10 tons less weight, Bark kept the main targets of the typhoon monster. Hacked him after only three test launches, with the necessary at least 10-12. Moreover, one launch was thwarted due to a failed squib of the rocket stage erosion, which then repeated on the Mace. Then came MIT, which aggressively pushed an even lighter, more compact version of the rocket, and even unified with the ground-based complex. How Solomon won in that fight is a separate question. But in this whole solid fuel race they completely forgot about the rockets. And while they tried to teach Bulava to fly unsuccessfully, the Makeevka office, without noise and dust, created and issued the Sinev’s R-29RMU2, and then with the new R-29RMU2.1 warhead breeding platform. A missile that even our traditional enemies were forced to recognize as a masterpiece of rocket science and which in all its main characteristics (except for the dry / wet start parameter) is superior to the exhausted Mace and is not inferior to Trident-2. Moreover, on an initiative basis, work began on R-29RMU3 Sineva-2 for possible deployment on Borey, in the event of the closure of the Bulava project. Not only the dimensions of the missile itself were changed to fit the dimensions of the mines available on the apl, but also control systems unified with those onboard. In this light, the order of Shoigu to conduct an additional five missile launches and to suspend the state tests of Boreev, may mean an attempt to put an end to this missile leapfrog and it is quite possible that this point could be the last highlight of the entire Bulava project.
    1. Nitup
      Nitup 17 September 2013 17: 02 New
      0
      Quote: rudolff
      which in all its basic characteristics (except for the dry / wet start parameter) exceeds the exhausted Mace

      But what about the fact that the operational safety of TT missiles is higher than that of VT, and that Bulava has higher thrust-to-weight ratio, that is, it has a higher speed and, consequently, a lower OUT than Liner?
      1. andr327
        andr327 17 September 2013 20: 32 New
        +1
        In rocket classics, the thrust-to-weight ratio of a liquid rocket is 1,5–2, and the solid fuel ratio is not less than 3. And safety is a technological discipline!
  14. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 17 September 2013 16: 54 New
    +3
    Sabotage of pure water! Glonass is the same. SMERSH urgently needed .. Moles divorced .. I have no words.
  15. sven27
    sven27 17 September 2013 17: 32 New
    0
    It is necessary to sift the factory marriage. It is necessary to shoot factory marriage in the person of managers and directors of these plants!
    1. jasper
      jasper 17 September 2013 18: 49 New
      0
      and appoint you in their place?
      1. alone
        alone 17 September 2013 20: 37 New
        0
        Quote: yasenpen
        and appoint you in their place?


        belay why are you punishing him so cruelly?
  16. Rash
    Rash 17 September 2013 17: 39 New
    +4
    Quote: Ivan Pomidorov
    How would it be softer to say ... the level of technical knowledge of military representatives, whom I knew at one time and handed over components and products to them, was incomparably lower than that of any engineer in our department, except for the girls on the premises (take the scheme to the tracing paper, pick up the blue from a copy, fill in TU, cut salads on NG, February 23 and March 8).
    You could suck in anything. And the higher the position of the host, the closer the theme of the banquet was to him, and not the verification of the TU points ...

    And for us (at the present time, he worked in the Quality Control Department for the production of ZAS equipment) for each marriage, heels shook before the military representative. The level of technical knowledge may have been low, but the level of responsibility and punishment was at its best!
  17. j iz sibiri
    j iz sibiri 17 September 2013 17: 40 New
    0
    need to plant
  18. rudolff
    rudolff 17 September 2013 17: 42 New
    +4
    Nitup, if you will, I will correct you. About security. Since the beginning of the encapsulation (amplification) of tanks with fuel components, the safety of liquid-fuel operation has been equal to solid-fuel, and possibly surpassed. What was a problem on the R-29RM ceased to be a problem on Sinev. She also became "unattended" for the entire period of operation. In addition, liquid fuel is more stable in contrast to solid fuel, which is prone to changes in structure and quality, “cracking”. Checking quality is difficult. In fact, at the plant, the rocket is not filled with fuel, but is built around fuel, i.e. carbon fiber strands are wound onto fuel briquettes, forming a “tank” body.
    As for energy efficiency, probably, if it were so, only solid fuel would fly into orbit and no one would bother with all these pumps, turbines, circuits.
    But as for the active part of the trajectory, to be honest I don’t know. Yes, Solomonov believes that the reduction of ATT increases the missile’s resistance to missile defense and, in addition, solid fuel. Perhaps, but not sure. An active site takes just a few minutes, how in this time they can manage to detect a launch, put an anti-missile into combat readiness, launch and catch an ICBM with engines still running ... I can’t imagine.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 17 September 2013 17: 57 New
      +2
      Quote: rudolff
      Moreover
      still it is worth adding a much lower sensitivity of liquid rockets to temperature storage conditions. The traction characteristics of solid fuel are VERY dependent on the temperature of the fuel assembly. And this is directly tied to the resource of the air conditioning system of rocket mines, especially when the ship is in the base (when the power plant is removed and power is received from the shore)
    2. Nitup
      Nitup 17 September 2013 18: 13 New
      0
      rudolff, speaking of safety, I also had in mind that rockets that are damaged by toxic fuel components when they fall during the tests of VT are harmful to the environment.
      Quote: rudolff
      As for energy efficiency, probably, if it were so, only solid fuel would fly into orbit and no one would bother with all these pumps, turbines, circuits.

      Right, I do not argue. But I'm talking about thrust-weight ratio, not about energy efficiency. Thrust-to-weight ratio is the ratio of engine thrust to rocket mass. Speed, acceleration, etc. depend on it. And energy efficiency is the ratio of fuel consumption per unit of weight cast. If you have noticed, loads are put into orbit at a much lower speed than military ICBMs.
      Quote: rudolff
      An active site takes just a few minutes, how in this time they can manage to detect a launch, put an anti-missile into combat readiness, launch and catch an ICBM with engines still running ... I can’t imagine.

      The fact is that launching missiles are detected by satellites using infrared radiation from a rocket torch. Accordingly, the shorter the time the torch burns, the less likely it is that a start will be detected and tracked.
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 17 September 2013 18: 25 New
        +2
        Solomonov spoke specifically about the destruction of ICBMs on the active site. And to detect a start, there are warning stations.
        1. Nitup
          Nitup 17 September 2013 19: 04 New
          0
          Quote: rudolff
          ... there are warning stations for detecting a start.

          For early warning of missile launches, SPRN satellites are used. Radars reach far from all areas of the Earth. Having discovered the start, the space echelon transmits a signal to ground-based radars.
          Solomonov spoke specifically about the destruction of ICBMs on the active site.

          Well, it is clear that the shorter this active section, the earlier the separation of warheads occurs, the more difficult it is to hit such a target.
    3. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 18 September 2013 06: 28 New
      0
      Gentlemen, calmly there is one very unfortunate problem for us, Our nuclear weapons were always put on missiles, it was more convenient and less expensive for us, the USSR could not force the Yankees to reckon with us, but we could not economically change the situation, Many copies were broken about this , Then give an urgent aircraft carrier or some other toy, What are you talking about, Wake up, Almost all rocket science went away, it was quickly bombed there, This is about Ukraine, Only because we were left to survive, we were not touched, And I like one moment that for some reason no one just notices, Or doesn’t want to see, The world has changed and it affects us, Now every product (missile) of the strategic triad is strictly taken into account according to the agreement, Or forgot, The main thing was to choose one option which can be immediately put into production where there is still an opportunity, But the possibilities were not very great, you noticed one feature the Yankees are very costly trying to create a hypersonic missile with horiz an on-line flight scheme that will replace, and possibly with axes as well, recent test launches failed but the flight time of this rocket has significantly increased compared to the previous launch. Now you understand an interesting detail, they undertook to create new sea and air launch weapons that do not fall under the contract, And we urgently need to change what is already starting to become obsolete, Yes there are pluses both here and there but there are opportunities and they will always outweigh, This is an axiom, We try and create what has always been done before where it is now done, And the requirements have changed for products earlier one is different now, and while there is no replacement for our missiles, Well, maybe something will appear but not soon,
  19. Rash
    Rash 17 September 2013 17: 50 New
    +2
    Quote: j iz sibiri
    But as for the active part of the trajectory, to be honest I don’t know. Yes, Solomonov believes that the reduction of ATT increases the missile’s resistance to missile defense and, in addition, solid fuel. Perhaps, but not sure. An active site takes just a few minutes, how in this time they can manage to detect a launch, put an anti-missile into combat readiness, launch and catch an ICBM with engines still running ... I can’t imagine.

    I don’t understand either. I believe that the advantage of the initial section is far-fetched.
    1. Alex
      Alex 17 September 2013 22: 04 New
      +2
      When the BR is intercepted, they do not catch up with it, but let the "anti-ballistic missile" at the calculated point where they should meet. And to intercept a missile is more profitable precisely in the active sector before the separation of warheads. Therefore, the Americans are striving to deploy "missile defense" outside their territory on offshore platforms as close as possible to the launch site of ICBMs and SLBMs. Over time, missile defense systems may appear that work on other physical principles and are deployed in space.
      So the reduction of the active site is even relevant.
  20. rudolff
    rudolff 17 September 2013 18: 02 New
    +1
    Rash, but I'm not j iz sibiri! I'm in Belarus now! good
  21. voliador
    voliador 17 September 2013 18: 05 New
    0
    Plant and confiscate! Then everything that should fly will fly.
  22. Rash
    Rash 17 September 2013 18: 06 New
    +2
    Quote: rudolff
    Moreover, on an initiative basis, work began on R-29RMU3 Sineva-2 for possible deployment on Borey, in the event of the closure of the Bulava project. Not only the dimensions of the missile itself were changed to fit the dimensions of the mines available on the apl, but also control systems unified with those onboard.

    Well done Makeevtsy! MIT will receive formidable competitors. Well, the end consumer will win in the competition - that is, the United States. smile
  23. Volzhan
    Volzhan 17 September 2013 18: 07 New
    +5
    It is necessary to deal with those who brought military science to an absurdity, ruined the branch science involved in the development of military equipment, destroyed the factories producing this equipment, destroyed the system of military missions that control the quality of enterprises and the harmonious system of quality and reliability of military equipment from issuing technical assignments to retirement of equipment. Otherwise, the mess created by "effective managers" - lawyers, sociologists and economists at senior positions in the military-industrial complex, will continue. You look at the expression on your face, but rather listen carefully to the Minister of Industry and Trade Manturov (a sociologist by education), which he sometimes says. These are best kept in closed medical facilities, in my opinion. The whole collapse in the above listed areas of activity on the conscience of the stool minister Serdyukov and his former deputy for arming Popovkin (especially). Who worked at the time when these two idiots ruled, remember how the enterprises of the military-industrial complex fell apart, the military missions at these enterprises were disbanded. The result is the loss of many technologies for the production of military equipment due to the mass dismissal of specialists from enterprises and specialists from military missions providing a well-balanced quality system at defense enterprises. But, the cosmos remained not yet collapsed - that's where the idiot Popovkin was sent. The result was not long in coming - the missiles started to fall with success, and sadly, they will fall - I say as a military representative with 30 years of experience and who knows the situation in the defense industry. Just an indispensable person for Putin and Medvedev in the collapse of Russian industry. In short, while no rockets will rule the country, planes will soon too. There are already no specialists in the RF Ministry of Defense who would be able to write a competent technical task for the development of new equipment, corresponding to the future needs of the army and navy. Therefore, everything is first written and done approximately, then the technical task is repeatedly adjusted and the result is what happened . In short, as long as fools rule in Russia, rockets will not fly.
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 17 September 2013 19: 23 New
      +3
      Quote: Volzhan
      It is necessary to deal with those who brought military science to an absurdity, ruined the branch science involved in the development of military equipment, destroyed the factories producing this equipment, destroyed the system of military missions that control the quality of enterprises and the harmonious system of quality and reliability of military equipment from issuing technical assignments to retirement of equipment.

      Did you forget who ruined everything - the traitor and agent of the CIA Gorbachev and the alcoholic Yeltsin !!! And with them, Chubais, Gaidara (his grandfather will definitely shoot him in the Other World), etc.
    2. My address
      My address 17 September 2013 20: 14 New
      0
      Dear Volzhan!
      More than two advantages (one in a personal) I can not put.
    3. military
      military 18 September 2013 15: 14 New
      0
      Quote: Volzhan
      In short, while fools rule in Russia ...

      now, they hit the sky with a finger ... laughing
      you can call them whatever you like ... however, they are by no means fools ... they are holding us for fools in this preference ... hi
  24. Rash
    Rash 17 September 2013 18: 11 New
    +1
    Down with Popovkin! negative
    1. jasper
      jasper 17 September 2013 18: 52 New
      +1
      nd it is a pity that everyone who knows how to manage military production has already got a job as taxi drivers and hairdressers (s)
      not guys, you sometimes look at yourself from the side okay? no offense, but "simple" decisions lead to hell
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 17 September 2013 19: 04 New
        +3
        Quote: yasenpen
        no offense, but "simple" decisions lead to hell

        And where do impunity go with impunity? When the only principle works among subcontractors: “Life is bad without a sucker”
      2. My address
        My address 17 September 2013 19: 53 New
        +1
        Dmitry.

        The fundamentals of management are the same for military and civil production. That for the management of the janitorial brigade (in which, unfortunately, DAM did not succeed), that for the head of state. I have the right to talk about it. I also ask you to look at my recent comm on "And the Russians will come ..." from last day's 09.05.

        A underwater misanthropist from a former tankman hi .
        I can not imagine that under hundreds of meters of soil (miner / miner), that under hundreds of water. And not for the eight-hour shift, but for tens of days. Because I respect the submariners.
  25. Aleksey_K
    Aleksey_K 17 September 2013 19: 16 New
    +3
    Quote: I think so
    In general, it is seen that the “new” Bulava missile is MUCH worse than the old and tested by the launches and time of the Sineva. So what? Replacing a bull with a turkey? No - TARGETED DISARMAMENT OF RUSSIA ...

    Sineva has common shortcomings inherent in rockets with liquid propellant rocket engines — increased carrier noise due to more equipment for servicing missiles, it takes more time to prepare for launch (“wet start”), toxicity of fuel components, and complexity of maintenance.
    The solid-propellant launch vehicles, to which Bulava belongs, being somewhat inferior to liquid-fuel rockets in their dynamic characteristics (which, in particular, is associated with a reduction in the thrown weight), significantly surpass them in the manufacturability of storage and operation. Cases of repeated accidents and catastrophes in the submarine fleet caused precisely by violations in the technology of handling liquid-fuel rockets are known. It should also be noted that in modern liquid rockets, nitrogen tetraoxide and asymmetric dimethylhydrazine as fuel are used as an oxidizing agent. Depressurization of rocket tanks is one of the most serious threats during their operation and has already led to the death of the K-219 submarine.
  26. georg737577
    georg737577 17 September 2013 19: 31 New
    0
    Quote: Volzhan
    In short, as long as fools rule in Russia, rockets will not fly.

    Short and capacious .. Plus to you!
  27. bulvas
    bulvas 17 September 2013 20: 00 New
    +2
    Thanks to the specialists who posted here!
    A lot of interesting and informative

    At one time, was related to the products discussed here, I can say that the quality of the VP was high. But this is what concerns production. At the development stage, the main word is still for the developers
    1. alone
      alone 17 September 2013 20: 40 New
      +1
      At the development stage, the main word is still for the developers

      in Soviet times, what was produced by the military-industrial complex was distinguished by its special quality. As for the current situation, I’ll say briefly. For development, money is needed.
      and many of those who must give them to one or another industry prefer to squander them. In this situation, various failures and accidents are not surprising.
  28. Strashila
    Strashila 17 September 2013 20: 37 New
    +2
    If you read the article ... then one conclusion suggests itself ... The mace did not pass the tests at the stage of pilot production ... there simply weren’t any "Contrary to popular belief, the fault of such a difficult test cycle was not the choice of the developer, but the removal of the marine 28th Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of Russia, as well as the decision to abandon the traditional test rocket launches from submersible stands. "... that is, they sent specialists ... refused to test ... AND IMMEDIATELY DELIVERED TO SERIAL PRODUCTION ... well, like Poplar seems to be flying. But they couldn’t put it on serial production ... and the whole point was that it was not the developer at the Moscow Institute of Heat Engineering who put on the series ... but in the old days it was a specialized research institute ... but that was in Soviet times that's why Poplar flies ... and now it’s clearly once again that they have “saved” the loot ... the developers themselves decided to put into production, but there wasn’t enough ... it’s not so simple, there are your own locks ... to develop one, But the production is completely different e dough ... and you need to be able to knead and knead.
    So in fact, a frank cut of the dough of amateurs from rocket science ... considering the cost of the project, considering the "savings" (rejection of specialists in curation, rejection of classical tests at the prototype stage, rejection of specialists for production, and this is an expensive pleasure) ... yes it’s not crazy, it’s fantastic money settled in the pockets of the Bulava lobbyists.
    But there are no questions about boats; they were designed and produced by the masters of their craft.
    But the worst thing is, I don’t laugh, the Mace is not Poplar, she has her own habits of transportation, storage and operation ... I emphasize this is not Poplar, he has his own, it is sacred to believe that the stuffing of the Mace will behave like in Poplar this is holy naivety ... and what it will turn into is not yet clear ... what will happen in a month, year, decade ... there is no answer to this, there is complete darkness.
  29. Captain45
    Captain45 17 September 2013 20: 41 New
    +1
    Quote: smel
    Justification can be found throughout. You can find a reason. How to make sure not to step on the rake many times?

    I don’t remember who exactly, but it seems SP Korolev said: "Whoever wants, he does, who does not want, is looking for a reason."
  30. yurii p
    yurii p 17 September 2013 20: 45 New
    0
    “The shield of the Motherland: you just need to sift the factory marriage.” ... only this marriage is at the level of ministries and heads of departments or corporations and not locksmiths or turners.
  31. Yun Klob
    Yun Klob 17 September 2013 22: 14 New
    0
    No competition, no positive result. Two design bureaus were supposed to develop the Mace and, based on the results of the tests, accept the best, and not rush around with imperfections like with a written shell.
  32. Koronik
    Koronik 18 September 2013 05: 30 New
    +1
    “You would like a citizen to write not books and books” Remember these words of the Lord! How many ready-made decisions are in the comments, let's wait for the conclusions of the commission.
  33. bubla5
    bubla5 18 September 2013 08: 20 New
    0
    the industry was not ready to issue a stable quality of serial products
    Yes, some factories can no longer produce their main types of products efficiently and on time, so the so-called managers rushing around the country buying up illiquid stocks, or even used products, and what we see in life.
  34. Mareman Vasilich
    Mareman Vasilich 18 September 2013 08: 50 New
    0
    Neither marriage should be weeded out, but planted and shot for negligence and sabotage. And in the case of the “Bulava” it smells like treason.