Finally some confirmation , The throwweight of 1,200 kg should also make Topol-M capable of carying 6 MIRV's unless restricted by space to carry it , The Bulava certainly has a larger 2 m dia airframe.

Pavel , The comment that R-29RM is a liquid fuel missile and hence effecient is not really factual , Liquid Fuel missile are more cumbersome to handle and since it has many moving parts it could make them less reliable compared to solid fuel , Liquid fuel has one distinct advantage over solid fuel is that the engine can be turned on and off while in flight.

Solid fuel are always in a ready to fire state and are much safer to handle and once sealed hardly requires maintainance over years , Solid fuel generally tends to be heavy

It seems that USA still retains the edge in solid-fuel technology. A lighter Trident-I have more throw-weight than the Bulava. Or it is the Bulava “optimized to acceleration” like the Topol-M? Anyway, the “land”-Bulava will have the same first stage of the SLBM or it will have a bigger one? Like the SS-N-20 & SS-24 couple.

Rodolfo , Bulava has all the characteristics of Topol-M , the SLBM definately has a slightly larger dia 2 m and is shorter(stubbier).

A nice comparision beween the two systems Bulava and Topol-M side by side

Yes, I knew Austin, but still seems to me that American solid fuel is CONSIDERABLY more energetic than the Russian one. See the throw-weight/total-weight ratio.
Anyway the Bulava should accelerate faster than the Trident given its commonality with the Topol-M. Do you know something about the announced land-based version of the missile? It seems pretty small for a ICBM. I tend to assume that its first stage will be larger.

Regards.

throw weight /total weight ratio is meaningless without speed and range taken into account. If Bulava outranges trident 1 by 500-1,000km's that would more than account for the difference.

I would doubt that the difference in range would explain it. The throw-weight definition in the treaty was designed to prevent underreporting:

The greatest throw-weight demonstrated in flight tests of an ICBM or SLBM of a new type shall be no less than the maximum calculated throw-weight that an ICBM or SLBM of that type could deliver to a distance of 11,000 kilometers for ICBMs, or to a distance of 9500 kilometers for SLBMs. (START Throw-weight Protocol, I.3a)

Speed is correlated with range for a ballistic trajectory. May be the difference in acceleration could explain the lower throw-weight/total-weight ratio.
Nowadays, the text in italics indicates that the declared throw-weight correspond to a ballistic trajectory (…no less than the maximum calculated throw-weight that an ICBM or SLBM of that type could deliver…) of 9.500 km for a SLBM. But considering artic patrol areas, 8.000 km is enough to reach CONUS, then giving the possibility of launching in depressed trajectories.

The best explanation for the lower throw-weight/total-weight ratio is the lower throw-weight/total-weight ratio. The point of the reference to the START definition is that throw-weight of SLBMs reported in the treaty is calculated in comparable conditions. However imperfect the definition of throw-weight is, these numbers do allow comparison of different SLBMs.

I don't quite understand why people are so concerned about comparing missile efficiency. The United States has substantial experience with building solid-propellant missiles, so it's not surprising it can build them better. So what?

Rodolfo, rocket power depends on many issues, no just throw weight. Bulava is a much newer NMD killer stick. Easy, man.

Pavel, you started a blog comparing missiles and then complain about missiles comparison. Not understandable, man.

We really dont know what kind/type of solid fuel Bulava uses and hence we cannot judge accuractely the specific impulse(Isp) generated by it .

Also it would be wrong to say that US is better at solid fuel than Russia is ( certainly US would have had a initial lead ) but there is close to 2 decade of time lag between Trident and Bulava and Russia would have made some serious strides in its solid fuel development.

There are other factors which could make a Missile lighter or heavier , To put its broadly these could be Solid Propulsion , Microelectronics and the more use of weight-saving material area like carbon-carbon composites.

By and large if you compare the Russian Missile ( any ) to their western counterparts they tend to be on the heavier side.

One of the contributing factor towards weight would be the comprehensive missile defence features incorporated in the missile itself special materials and the extra features to protect against anti-missile system like laser , extra hardening provided to warhead etc

If one looks at Topol-M which the designer of Bulava stated that it will have 70 percent commonality with it then all the special features makes sense.

A Russian news report had mentioned the range of Bulava was a little greater than 8000 km ( ~ 8,300 km )

Rodolfo , AFAIK the Land Based one is similar to the mobile version , It certainly looks smaller compared to its other land based cousin , But if I am not wrong the Russians classify the Topol-M has a light ICBM and the much older cousin SS-18 as a Heavy ICBM.

Pavel could perhaps correct me if I am wrong.

Austin, according to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/bulava.htm, “Russian officials have reported that land-mobile versions of the missile will also be developed”, so differentiating it from the mobile Topol-m, from which, nevertheless, it will take a lot. But a land-mobile version should have some differences with respect to a submarine launched version, at least in the first stage. It should be assumed that will be heavier than the SS-27 although light/small for Soviet/Russian standards.
The same link claim it have anti-missile-defense capabilities, so your explanation seems pretty likely.

Rodolfo , I am sorry perhaps I misread your question , I though you were asking me about the land variant of Topol-M.

IIRC Pavel has mentioned in his Blog , That Bulava is a Universal Missile (Land/Sea) and Russias defence minister has also stated that it has plans to develop a land based version.

If you are suggesting that First Stage should be larger ( probably means a faster acceleration during Boost Phase , perhaps range improvements ) then thats a possibility , But that would again mean tinkering with the basic design and going back to computer simulation perfecting it and getting back and firing few protypes, all in all more time , money and advantage gained will be very little , the basic Bulava seems very robust.

I dont know what Russians have in mind for the Land Based Bulava . But I would think there wont be any changes compared to its Sea Based Cousin.

I recall from memory the Defence Minister was quoted as saying some time back that they are designing & developing a Land Based Heavy ICBM which will be a liquid fuel one.

I would urge everyone to be very cautious about what "Russian defense officials" are saying or are reported to say. Otherwise this thread will end up with claims of "mobile heavy missiles that can fly sideways to go around missile defenses" or something like that.

So, if "Russian defense officials" are not credible, it will not be a land-based Bulava?

Austin, it seems a little bit contradictory to design a liquid fuel heavy ICBM after heavy investment in the Topol-m/Bulava family that can deliver multiple warheads. It contradicts the path toward solid fuel. In addition to more investment, these enormous ICBM seems more appropriate for a Cold-war era. Nevertheless, I will appreciate more information about this.

Regards

I'm not sure I have a clear understanding of the land-based Bulava project. Is this a new silo-based missile based on components from the SLBM Bulava? Is this to replace SS-18 & 19s? Is this MIRV missile to be road-mobile in place of the before mentioned mobile single warhead Topol M? When you're struggling to manufacture adequate numbers of Topol M's, why introduce yet another weapon to compete with manufacturing capabilities and funding? Can’t just be warhead numbers, you could MIRV the Topol M’s. Is the land-based Bulava a replacement for the Topol M? That’s a possibility.

Frank Shuler
USA

I don't know. May be the version of the land-Bulava are just words as Podvig seems indicating.

Here something from http://www.missilethreat.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 7, 2005 :: Itar-Tass :: News

The Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, General Yuri Baluyevsky, said today in Kaliningrad that the SS-N-30 Bulava ballistic missile, recently tested on September 27, is intended to ultimately be interoperable, capable of being launched from either sea or land, reports Itar-Tass. Previously, the Bulava has only been discussed as a sea-launched system—specifically, the sea-launched version of the SS-27 Topol-M missile. Excerpt from Itar Tass:

“The intention is that the state-of-the-art Bulava missile system should eventually be standardized, capable of being used either at sea or on land,” Baluyevsky said. The army general did specify how many systems would come into service in the near future. “Of course, we in the military—both ground forces and the navy—would like to have many up-to-date weapons. But we appreciate that the country also has other problems which require large financial resources,” Baluyevsky noted.

At the same time the CGS emphasized that in the new state defense program which “is being drafted and will be submitted to the president in the first half of 2006, procurement of armaments and military hardware is, effectively, being increased by 50 per cent.” “The state defense order for 2006 is the start of our progress towards the formation of this new state program,” Baluyevsky stressed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting.

However, I don't know in history a single naval SLBM that has been adopted, as is, for "ground" use. You can have missile systems that share some of the same technology or have common components but you'll still have to "harden" the land-based missile for electronic pulse and such. There are just too many modifications that need to be manufactured to make the same missile work for both land and sea service. If a submarine SLBM could easily be adapted for land use, the American Minuteman would have been updated by Trident years ago.

Frank Shuler
USA

Liquid fuel ICBM has it own advantage , Its provides much higher specific impulse ( much higher throw weight ) and its engine can be throttled , shut off and then on something which you cannot do with solid fuel.

But Liquid Fuel has its own Logistics and Handling Problems , If you have a mobile system constantly on the move then Liquid Fuel can be a pain , If for Silos where once the missile is placed , it remain there till the time it needs replacement and there is no logistics issue associated with it nor any weight penalty.

Also the Russian Missile Manufacturer ( one design bureau ) prefers Liqui Fuel over solid as they seem to have vast experience in dealing with Liquid Fuel engine.

If and when the heavy SS-18/19 is replaced it will most likely be replaced by another Liquid Fuel one for all the advantages it can offer for a silo based ICBM.

As far as Bulava goes . Thats an option they can choose to exercise as a Land based ICBM, not necessary they will do so , Perhaps 2010 is the right time to think about such a system

Russian nuclear forces, 2006

Development of a new generation ICBM, possibly with liquid-fuel propellant, appears under way. According to several news reports, the new ICBM will possess a throw weight of 4.4 tons (similar to the SS-19) and be able to carry up to 10 warheads. [10]

Modern russian solid fuel tecnologys are quite equivalent with american. But russian solid fuel has more termal diapasone of storage. Bases of russian SSBN has about -30 degrees of Celsium ( -22 of Farengeit) by winter. Therefore russian solid fuel has more procent of plastificators, and some less powerful then american. Similar american explosive C4 more powerful, then russian PVV-4 "Plastid" becouse it has more explosive and less plastificators. But C4 is freezing at +2C and russian explosive is freezing aboute -20C.