Talk:RSM-56 Bulava

same missile?

what's the difference from bulava to sineva and R-29RMU2 Layner ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.184.173 (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

- much , r30 is almost all solid propellent (third or warhead stage have liquid for maneuvering , sineva r29rmu is liquid , r29rmu2,1 is solid or liquid(3rd stage or warhead section) solid with mirv, bulava mirv ; also marv and hypersonic (on atmosphere) can be loaded --79.55.62.87 (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note

Just a note for when this article is cleaned up and expanded: "The first in-flight test launch was conducted September 27, 2005 from the Dmitry Donskoi, a Typhoon class ballistic missile submarine." From RIA Novosti at [1] Hope it's useful somehow. Oceanhahn 01:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Added it in. Rmhermen 15:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, why does it say the September 27th test ended in failure when the cited news article says it and another test were successful. Seems like Rmhermen is trying to promote an anti-Russian bias. --Skyler Streng 17:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it failed, that's why. Actually, several officers were fired or reprimanded for leaking this fact to the media. I also heard that Summer 2007 test was also less than fully successful: while missile didn't break up on lauch, as is all three 2006 tests, and flew all the distance, RVs didn't hit the target. Buth then it might be the airframe test, to check whether the errors were indeed corrected, and not the complete run. --Khathi 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dec 9th 2009 UNCONFIRMED

Do not post unconfirmed reports as factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.115.2 (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed by sources inside the Russian north fleet to Norwegian TV2:
Translated from [tv2nyhetene.no]:
"It was a Bulava missile launced from a submarine this morning, says a source inside the Russian military to tv2nyhetene.no"
TV2 is Norway's largest independent nationwide TV broadcaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomEG (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that this is not confirmed by the Russian Government and the Military source is undisclosed. Officially they are not saying they did it yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.115.2 (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of the words "spectacularly failed" seems unencyclopedic. I think the adjective used here is unnecessary and unfair. In a war scenario, a failure is a failure (whether grandiose or minor). I will remove it. 97.125.55.30 (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Russian military and Interfax have confirmed that it was a missile launch, which failed during ignition of its third stage. Interfax also says that seven Bulava missile tests (out of 12) have been failures, contradicting the WP list, which claims 6 out of 13. --MoRsE (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Capability to withstand nuclear blast

The section should be either removed or clarified. What kind of nuclear blast ? Nuclear bombs explosion energy can vary from 1kt of TNT to 50MT and above, i.e. 50.000 times! Also in what environment? Effects of blast would be very different on the surface, under water, in the atmosphere or in the space. In it's current form the statement about Bulavas ability to withstand nuclear blast at distance 500 meters is rather dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.6.175 (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC) why dubious? it is claimed by russian officials. if it was usa officials it wasn't dubious anymore? stop with systemic bias, american military articles on wikipedia are full of bs and no one ever says it's dubious or whatever. this claim is valid and confirmed by several russian sources and media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.104.143 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I think I clearly stated why it is dubious. But instead of addressing issue you prefer typical nationalistic demagogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.163.242 (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC) == The text describing the Bulava's "Capability to withstand nuclear blast" should be removed from this article, as it is too vague and speculative. See below.

In the atmosphere (probably around 3-4 minutes during the Bulava's late boost phase - given the expected SLBM launch warning and missile intent assessment time), detonations of even a modest defensive nuclear warhead (~20 kt or so) within the 'resistance capability' radius described herein would both deform the structure of the missile and alter the trajectory so as to render the missile defeated, if not destroyed.

Outside the atmosphere (during the mid-course trajectory phase), the EM (Electro-Magnetic) effects of such a nearby nuclear detonation would be much greater than those propagated within the atmosphere - due to the absence of attenuating effects by the atmosphere of the resulting EMP.

In addition, the diameter of the destructive nuclear fireball increases for a given yield's nuclear detonation with ascending altitude into the upper atmosphere due again to the decrease of atmospheric attenuation of the primary high-energy particles.

While I don't doubt that lab-mounted examples of the Bulava's electronics package, and perhaps even some components from the propellant package actually survived irradiation left unspecified (note that the yield and radiation flux from the attacking weapon are not specified), it is clearly not possible for any ballistic missile, during its entire delivery regime, to withstand the effects of a high-yield (300kt plus) defensive nuclear detonation which takes place at a maximum of 1600m (slightly less than a mile, virtually 5,240 feet) from the target weapon already launched - and already on its way to its intended target.

The known metrics for blast pressures generated within the atmosphere, also published data on high-altitude nuclear explosion fireball radii in the upper (more rarefied) atmosphere, make this an absurd claim - and one not backed up by ANY documentation.

Note that the (Russian) reference cited in the article is now a dead link.

Please document the article's claims. Big Lew 02:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit

I have noted in the article that the claimed ability to survive a nuclear blast 500m away is rubbish. Both the physical shock and the radiation would suffice to ruin the warhead quite sufficiently at that distance. Jtrainor 22:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no atmosphere in the space, you know. And so, no significant shock wave and "physical shock" from any blast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necator (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? The only ABMs that use nuclear warheads detonate in-atmosphere. Jtrainor 17:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The only chance for ABM to destroy ICBM is to do so before it will release several warheads + much more decoys. And ICBM will d so in the space on upper part of its trajectory.

What about "The only ABMs that use nuclear warheads detonate in-atmosphere." see this.

Anyway, before deleting phrase "its physically impossible" can you pls provide the calculations, that will clearly show that its physically impossible for any material to survive such conditions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necator (talk • contribs) 23:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to do that. Since you (and the Russians) are claiming that it's possible, it's up to them to prove it. Unsourced information may be removed at any time. Jtrainor 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually that was your claim, that "its physically impossible". So prove pls somehow that its really "physically impossible" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necator (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As a hitherto uninvolved editor, I agree with User:Necator: both the assertion that the Russians claim this capability and any assertion that this capability would be physically impossible should be sourced and, absent sourcing, either can be removed at any time. Sarcasticidealist 21:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

QED-- the missile is claimed to have those abilities. The information did not just pop out of thin air as fact. Jtrainor 00:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, did anyone actually read the reference cited concerning those capabilities? It even states that the Russian claims are dubious... MalikCarr 01:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at, User:Jtrainor - obviously the information didn't pop out of thin air. It popped out of the mouth of some Russian military type, who made the claim, which is then reproduced in this article (as a claim, not as a fact). What do you see as being the problem here? Sarcasticidealist 04:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That a claim is being presented as fact, instead of a claim. This is the core of the issue. Jtrainor 21:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Ah - when I first commented, it was portrayed as a claim - I hadn't noticed that User:Necator subsequently deleted that language. I've re-inserted the wording "designed to be", which is the language found in the source and which I think makes clear that it hasn't actually ever been tested in this regard. Sarcasticidealist 22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Ive once checked the contributions made by Jtrainor, and realize that he is pushing his ant-russian bias to several articles about russian military. Thats why ive started to clean this out. Necator 22:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you're getting at, but I think the current state of the article is fine. Changing it to portray the missile's ability to withstand a nuclear blast would be inappropriate (without a credible source saying unequivacolly that the missile *does* have this capability), as would inserting a claim that such an ability is physically impossible (unless a source can be found for this claim). Are you both satisfied with the current version of the article? Sarcasticidealist 22:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Actually the only thing i'd like to remove is the claims about physical impossibility. Thanks for your help to resolve it! Necator 22:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly merger

The 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly article has been proposed to merge into this article. No rationale for said merger has been given.

• Oppose - Article has received significant international coverage and has sufficient notability to remain separate. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Ditto. Cop 663 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose enough for a stand alone, can link the articles where appropriate Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - time spent for merging could be redirected into expanding other articles :-) Remove the merger per 0:4 voting. Materialscientist (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

<strikeout>I removed the tag based on the above.Cop 663 (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)</strikeout> Never mind - some editors have been discussing the same question on Talk:2009_Norwegian_spiral_anomaly#Merge. They may wish to chip in. Cop 663 (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The merge should happen because the "2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly" (ugh, what a horrible wikineologism) was a launch of this missile, and it is simply a flash-in-the-pan news event best dealt with as part of the larger subject of the (failed) tests of this missile. Fences&Windows 02:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I was going to respond on the other article's talk, but saw the link to here. First of all, you are ignoring the historical context of the social aspects of the initial announcement and how it was covered in the media. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and part of that includes History. Should we just go and delete articles talking about the history of science because a lot of it is deemed obsolete now? Secondly, as an authority that a lot of people look to as accurate, merging the articles makes a political message that future alternative theories other than the missile theory are not acceptable and we have cemented this by removing the Norway article. I don't think that Wikipedia should take a political stance on this and it is too premature to assume that nothing further will come out of it. E.g. we might as well start burning books as well to squelch opposing viewpoints. We haven't heard too many differing viewpoints yet and I believe more may come of this when people get out of the holidays and actually start thinking about it and looking at the videos (e.g. http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1562587976?bctid=55946023001) and see how ridiculous the missile theory sounds when you really dig. I Theories have still failed to explain how the spiral rotated and continued to fan out in a perfect Archimedes spiral LARGER than the blue supposed exhaust plume that should represent the flight path of the rocket (the blue portion) and why it didn't slowly disperse in an irregular way due to atmospheric conditions, which only makes sense in the vacuum of space. n fact, there are already people investigating mathematically the validity of the missile theory such as the following - which later was found to have issues during incorrect input data however those issues didn't support the missile theory either (http://bringthefunk.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-norway-spirals-and-their-physically.html). Since the writer took down his paper while he checks some facts, my whole point is that it doesn't look to me like discussion is over. Another interesting discussion here: http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/98136-norwegian-spiral-not-russian-missile-2.html Netdragon (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Support merger. The lightshow is not notable enough for its own article, as per WP:NOTNEWS:

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all newsworthy events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own.

The event does not have any lasting consequences outside of the development of the missile itself, and those consequences belong to this article and not into the anomality article. The event was quickly covered and quickly forgotten in the media. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not for speculation about invalidated theories. Offliner (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merger, support a link at the bottom as a compromise. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Flight test section

Nice work on the new Flight test section. However I did get a little worried after almost three years of collecting news for this section. It seems well written so I wont protest.Walle83 (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. I believe most of the material I removed was either redundant or obsolete. I think the following structure would be the best: the "development history" mentions those tests which were especially important for the program. The timetable lists all tests. Perhaps in the future I will (re)add some information further information about the tests either to the table or the history section. But right now it seems fine. Offliner (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

June 7, 2012 missile test?

There is speculation, that a Bulava missile was test fired from a submarine in the Mediterranean on June 7, 2012.

• UFO_ Missile trace_ New mystery spiral lights seen over Israel, Middle East. Russia Today. 8.6.2012. {{cite AV media}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• 7 June 2012: Russia displays intercontinental nuclear ballistic superiority

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC) can't you read your own links? it's a topol not a bulava. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.65.36 (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

confused infos about code designation

some says SS-NX-32 some SS-NX-30 and SS-N-30A not 27 3M14 klub wtafh?! idk . --Zafer14ur8 (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC) saphire&rubine

15 November 2015 - Launch failed?

Does anybody have a reliable source to back it up? Russian defense ministry and others news outlets calims it to be sucsessful.

References

== External links modified (January 2018)