Intercontinental SLBMs - Russian Bulava vs American Trident
Dmitri June 29th, 2007
The RSM 56 Bulava SLBM (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile) project of Russia went on a superfast track after the rising tension between the United States of America and Russia since 2006. The RSM 56 Bulava SLBM was successfully tested on June 28, 2007 from the Dmitry Donskoi nuclear submarine off the White Sea. Before this test there were three unsuccessful test launches in 2006, the causes of the failure not specified. The successful test of the Bulava barely a month after the RS 24 ICBM test, seemed to arouse global interests in the re-emergence of Russia as a world military superpower. There is widespread curiosity - if the Russian Bulava SLBM would be able to beat the US’ UGM-133A Trident (one of the most sophisticated and capable SLBMs in the world).
A news video on Russia’s Bulava SLBM test on June 2007 (Click on video to play)
RSM 56 Bulava - The missile is currently in development and slated for deployment in the Russian Navy in 2008. The Bulava is an MIRV tipped SLBM which can carry 4 - 10 independently targetable nuclear warheads of at least 100 kilotons each. The range of the Bulava is expected to be over 8300 kms taking into consideration the ranges of currently operational Russian SLBMs. The top speed of Bulava is not known but is expected to be faster than other SLBMs since it is based on the Russian Topol M class missiles (the fastest known missiles). It can be guided by a Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) and after the fuel of the missile is expended, the warheads will follow an inertial trajectory (called ‘throw weight’ path). Twelve (12) of Bulava RSM 56 SLBMs can be fitted on each of the new generation Borei class submarines (which incidentally, was fast tracked and launched on April 2007, instead of the slated 2010).
UGM-133A Trident - The UGM-133A Trident D5, as it is technically known is currently operational and deployed by the US Navy. It has an inter-continental range with the capability to strike targets 7360+ kms away and can carry a payload of 3-6 nuclear MIRVed warheads. The Trident is also known for its high burnout speed and target accuracy of 380 meters, making it a powerful first strike nuclear missile. The guidance of this missile is based on a Global Positioning System (GPS) variant and when the fuel is expended, it follows an inertial guidance path. The Trident D5 can be fitted into Ohio class submarines and as with any SLBMs, launched from underwater submarines. The Trident D5 has been deployed since 1991 and has remained the most sophisticated submarine launched ballistic missile for a long time since.
Summing Up - There is no clear cut winner, at least using the known and tested data. The Trident does score over Bulava in that while it is operational and active, the Bulava is still to be deployed in 2008. Both the Bulava and Trident have long ranges capable of targeting any part of the world. The Trident has a maximum payload of 2800 kg which is significantly higher than the Bulava’s 1600 kg - which means the Trident can carry heavier and more warheads. Until the Bulava is deployed and more tests done, a more just comparison for Trident D5 would be the Russian SLBM RSM 54 Skiff which has been deployed and operational since 1986 and is capable of carrying 4-10 MIRVed warheads (2800 kg) over 8300+ kms. If the available public data is to be believed, the Bulava is behind Trident and Skiff in most parameters except speed and navigation system. The Bulava is probably designed for its high speed and high-technology navigation capabilities, to supplement the existing Skiff SLBM. Meanwhile the current competition is between one with longer range and greater MIRV capability (Skiff) while the other with higher speed and accuracy (Trident).
More Information and Resources -
Fact File on UGM 133A Trident D5 - US Navy
Fact File on RSM 54 Skiff - Global Security
Details on the Bulava Test - Global Security
Possibly Related posts:
- Russian Missile Tests - Beginning of a new Cold War?
- Russian Oil Games In The Arctic Shelf
- Terror Attacks in Mumbai and the American Connection
- The Stupid American Tourists
- Bill of American International Rights
- Military , Technology
- Comments(12)
Loading ...
Unless the Bulava is up and running, I think it will be a bit early to predict such a dim future of a next generation SLBM. According to BBC news the Bulava is supposed to do more than 10000 kms, more than either Trident or Skiff.
Sounds like a pointless contest to me because all the details would not matter in reality. If these things started flying, regardless of who has the better missiles, we would all be completely screwed. It would be better to start thinking about how to work together than holding a measuring stick up to our missiles. In this case, what counts is not the size of the missile, but that we don’t ever use them.
You are right, we do not want any of these missiles flying around. A full scale war between USA or Russia would not only destroy the two nations but destroy the human race along with it. As sane people, it would be naive for us to envision a nuclear war where these missiles are used. The objective of these missiles is ‘credible deterrance’ which again boils down to politics. If an enemy has nuclear weapons, delivery systems and defence systems which are far more better than ours then it would create a strategic imbalance in the favour of the enemy. This could create political, economic or military subjugation of one by the other and possibly lead to a war. Countries like Russia, China, France, etc. who have faced the might of the enemy and wished they had better defence know these facts best….
Well….There is absolutely no point in determining which nuclear ICBM/SLBM is the best….That cannot let The U S or The Russians win a war….Only a foolish Dictator (apparently, someone like Hitler) would use such weapons of mass destruction rather than something like a Tommahawk Missile or some of the 21st Century Jets like Su-47s and F-22s (My Top 2). Nuclear Missiles are so 20th Century, don’t you think? They should be used in situations like fighting against Extra-Terrestrials….hehe…It would be more sensible to develop better non-atomic weaponery….so, lets forget about the plutonium nucleus…..
It is amusing to watch Russia flex its muscles with nuclear missiles when they know as well as US, these missiles will never be used unless a suicidal self destruction is under way. We do not want another Cold War, it will only bring unnecessary tensions and drain our resource trying to match up each other on such destructive weapons.
@ Xero
Just one comment: Hitler was a dictator, yes, but he wasn’t foolish. He made some strategic mistakes that not many can dispute, which led to Germany’s defeat and his suicide, but he was a smart, carefully calculating man. You probably meant that he was an “evil asshole,” to put it without much creativity, which is fine; I don’t think many will dispute that, either. A discussion of stupidity starts with George W. Bush, and it ends with him; there isn’t much left in between, either.
Which would you rather have, a very expensive bomber like B-2 Spirit that carries less than 25% chance of hitting a highly defended target or a cheaper new generation ICBM that has 100% chance of hitting the target?
In fact it is the opposite. Only a mentally insane would attempt to secure his nation from United States using cruise missiles and fighters, if he could afford nuclear weapons. Maintaining and developing expensive weapons like these would drain the resources of China or Russia when they could spend much less and ensure foolproof security for at least a decade using nuclear missiles. If you were to protect yourself from thugs, it would make better sense to equip yourself with a gun rather than spend considerable amount of time, effort and money to build up your body that needs constant maintenance and diet. Nuclear weapons work on the same principle, they are cheap, effective and deadly like a gun.
Nuclear weapons are actually 25th century weapons that were built a few centuries ahead due to a few breakthorough researches by Europeans. Fighters and bombers are 20th century weapons that make sense only in use against militarily impotent nations like Iraq. The only weapons that can ensure a nation’s sovereignty and protection from a foreign attack are nuclear weapons.
Agreed. If Hitler was a stupid man as Xero claims, he wouldn’t have had the two superpowers of the time - Great Britain and United States on their knees trying to make a truce with him. His biggest mistake was that he didn’t learn from history. He unestimated Russia and attempted to invade the nation that no one could successfully invade. Fortunately for Americans, their governments didn’t make this mistake that would have brought about its self-destruction and anihilation like Hitler or Napoleon.
it is absolutely foolish 2 compare any items of millitary parahernalia of russia with that of u.s.a. inspite of russia being overwhelmingly superior 2 u.s.a in all millitary aspects,as a full fledged war between this 2 titans would mean the end of human race in almost no time.
i fully agree with Aby that although Bush or any u.s. presidents r known world wide 4 their foolishness they hav been clever enough 2 avoid their self destruction by avoiding invading u.s.s.r. or russia thus avoiding what Hitler and Napolean did.evil fascist u.s.a. must bow down b4 russia and get rid of their ridiculous air of sueriority.
but i would like 2 contradict Aby that fighter jets by no means r useless in this century in any kind of battlefield. i am a communist and naturally hate war, BUT any large scale war in the future will sure b rattled by the sonic booms of Su 47 and Mig 1.44 (My top 2, dear Xero).
so let us all hope for a future full of true peace away from the danger of any sort of apocalypse.
Its a shame we gotta keep developing weapons to keep up with each other and maintain peace, aw well, thats life.
Something Aby said caught my eye though, “They should be used in situations like fighting against ETs”….I wonder how the world would react if that ever happened.
After second world war america attacked only those nations which arent able to hit back at american mainland. vietnam, libiya, iraq, sudan, yugoslovia, afganistan, now pakistan…..the americans are really clever to avoid a hit from the so called enemies. They won’t dare to do stunts against russia or china or not even north korea. One funny thing i’ve seen is that mr. bush attacked iraq becoz it had sought/intentions to make WMD!! First time in the history of the world someone (a nation) is punished for its evil intention, not deeds. Great work done by world cop-Mr.Bush.
But on the other side of the world a crazy stupid guy kim ill of korea declared that they had all kinds of weapons and even threatened american slaves like south korea and japan. But nothing happened becoz american knew if they try to attack north korea they find themselves at least half barbecued!!. And even with Iran they are scared to do anything becoz of iran’s powerful relations with russia and china.
Another thing my country india was threatned by america several times when we went to war with pakistan. Rememeber india is a democratic country and pakistan is ruled by some or the other dictator who are american stooges. It was russia’s support to us which made americans think again of attacking us. Even they persuaded china to attack india during these times.
Americans always want war which they are sure to win….something like Mike tyson vs a common man. They don’t want a real fight with a real fighter like Fedor emelianko( world mma champion).
Hope a decent and sensible guy become uncle sam’s leader.
Yo guys if you compare 1 vs 1 it looks like the Bulava might be a bit better because of its range. No one knows if the missle however exploded 3 times because of taht they have been abel o solve soem of the problems or if it is a seriose design flaw. no one knows. However if you look at the number of them in operation you have to see that the americans missle has teh advantage because of its numbers. even though it has a tiny disatvantage in reach it seams to me that the Trident program is on top.
I vehemently disagree with you, Aby. Hitler did underestimated Russia, but this does not mean Nazi Germans will lose the war to Russia. During in WWII, When the Nazi Germans invaded Russia, nearly whole Russia were occupied by the Germans, except for Stalingrad. The Russians were struggling to hold on the Stalingrad, where the Nazi Germans were heavily storm in. The Russians were scared to hell and ran off from their mother land to hide from the ambitious Nazi Germans. It is almost impossible for the Russian to turn it over to repel the Nazi Germans. However, thanks to the Italians soldiers were weak and have once and again delaying the footsteps of Nazi Germans marching on. Loses many battles in the middle-east, forced the Nazi Germans, especially Hitler had decided to withdraw his men from Russia to fight in middle-east. With the withdrawal of Nazi Germans, the Russians were able to regroup and prepared to fight and ambushed the return Germans troops. Hence, I do agree Hitler made mistake for underestimated the Russians in certain extent, there is high possibilities the Germans to win the war nonetheless.