Trident Never Fails

The Strategy Page ^ | 12/25/2009 | The Strategy Page

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

While the new Russian Bulava SLBM (Sea Launched Ballistic Missile) continues to fail flight tests, its U.S. counterpart, the much older, 58 ton, 44 foot long Trident II, has not failed to launch successfully in twenty years. Since 1989, none of more than 120 test launches have failed. The Trident had two failures during its 49 development test launches, but since then, it has been the most reliable SLBM to ever enter service. Each Trident II costs about $65 million, and entered service in 1990. Some of them are fired every year, to insure that the current configuration (of hardware and software) still works as it is supposed to. In contrast, the latest Russian SLBM, the Bulava, is having an awful time in testing. While the overall (out of over 5,000 of them) failure rate for test launches of Russian rockets is eight percent (and the U.S. Trident I had a failure rate of 13 percent while in development), more than half of Bulava's development test launches have failed. The 48 ton, 56 foot long Bulava costs about the same as the Trident II. Russian leaders insist that the Bulava will eventually succeed. But insiders say that, if you use the same criteria for a successful Trident II launch, only one of the 13 Bulava tests was a success.

While the Bulava is less reliable, it is using more modern components than the Trident II. The guidance system for the Trident II uses 1980s era electronics, and is becoming impossible to maintain. That's because many key components are not manufactured anymore, and supplies of these spares are running out. So the U.S. Navy is developing a new guidance system, using current components, and a design that makes it easier to substitute future, and more powerful, components for those that become

[ffusco]

Thank You Ronald Reagan!!!

[naturalized]

I quit worrying about the Russian military when I learned that their Migs were crashing cause the mechanics were stealing the deicer to satisfy their hollow legs. We learned all we needed to about Russian military capability from their misadventure in Afghanistan and our conquest of Iraq.

[LS]

If you're interested, our book "Trident" I think remains the standard on the history of the Ohio-class program. At the time, we called for accelerating deployment of the D-II, and that was in 1983 when we wrote that.

(Dalgleish and Schweikart, Trident [Carbondale: Southern Illinois U. Press, 1984).

[LS]

Reagan did a lot of amazing things, but launching the Ohio class was not one of them. It was planned under Nixon, funded under Nixon, Ford, and Carter, and the first boat, the U.S.S. Ohio, went into the water shortly after Reagan was inaugurated. He had almost nothing to do with it. Carter probably would have canceled it, but the program was too far along, with at least four Ohio-class vessels building by the late 1970s.

See our book, "Trident," by Doug Dalgleish and myself, Southern Illinois U. Press, 1984.

[ffusco]

Thanks! As a kid I saw one of the boats under construction in Groton, Connecticut at GE Electric Boat Division.

[mkjessup]

The Russians need to scrap the Bulava, and stick with Bulova:

At least it works and keeps accurate time.

[puppypusher]

The fact that those Trident missiles work as well as they do must keep Vladimir Putin up late at night.

He can’t afford to do anything stupid.

[GonzoGOP]

They interesting thing is that the RSM-56 SLBM is a derivative of the Russian's main ICBM the Topol M. If the SLBM version is such a dog I wonder how reliable their land based systems are. If you are Russia an unreliable ICBMs sends a very undesirable signal to countries like China.

And you figure the test launches are of a missile that is new and has been closely maintained. The Topol Ms have been bouncing around inside a mobile truck launcher on dirt roads since 1997. Tended that entire time by legendary Russian maintenance.

[The Great RJ]

This is an example of great American engineering. Similarly the Saturn 5 moon rocket never had a failure despite it being the most complex machine of its time. Though the Saturn 5 owed its success to Werner von Braun and his German engineers.

[CholeraJoe]

Notwithstanding our ICBM’s 1980’s era guidance systems, their MIRVs routinely have accuracy of 200 meters or less.

[LS]

Astounding vessels. 42 feet in diameter!

[LS]

Astounding vessels. 42 feet in diameter!

[Primorsky]

Bulava is not directly comparable missile to Trident:

- According to Russian sources, Bulava is far more sophisticated SLBM.
Quote:
“Bulava carries up to ten hypersonic maneuverable independently targetable nuclear reentry vehicles(MARV) capable to change flight trajectory in altitude and course”

In same time, Trident is just typical ballistic missile, equiped with MIRV(that has fully predictable trajectory). Other foreign SLBMs(French, Chinese) are in same category.

- Bulava’s third stage with “warhead bus” propelled with liquid-fuel engine for additional capability(fast maneuverability), unlike other solid-fuel SLBMs.

- Bulava has very short active(boost) phase, unlike any other SLBM

- New warheads configuration was used in Bulava with new lightweight nukes to reduce payload requirements.
Same configuration was adopted for new Russian land-based ICBM RS-24 “Yars” that can be deployed on silos and mobile vehicles.

In my personal opinion, problems with Bulava caused with production quality control, not with design flaws.

Russia also has relatively new R-29RMU Sineva SLBM(deployed on Delta3 and Delta4 boomers) in active arsenal, good enough and proven as very reliable.

[wideminded]

Astounding vessels. 42 feet in diameter!

The article said that the Trident II missiles are 44 feet long, so either they put them in in slanted tubes or the submarine must be even wider.

[bmwcyle]

Second stage failure caused the missile to fail. The Russians have been having problems since 1989 on this thing.

[Primorsky]

>>>I quit worrying about the Russian military when I learned that their Migs were crashing cause the mechanics were stealing the deicer to satisfy their hollow legs

Provide your source. Where? When?

Why two of F-22 Raptor ($350 million per unit) plane already crashed? Why “invisible” B-2 bombers crashed few times?

>>>We learned all we needed to about Russian military capability from their misadventure in Afghanistan and our conquest of Iraq.

What’s wrong with Soviet military capability in Afghanistan??? It was full-scale operation to support friendly political force in Afghanistan, it was partisan war. Soviet army succesfully reached its main objects to 1)keep friendly government of Afghanistan 2) control over most important regions.
Soviet army lost 15,000 soldiers during ten years of bloody and cowardly partisan war. But Soviets killed a lot of mujaheddin bastards(for some sources nearly million).
Then USSR had run out money to continue anti-partisan operations and support “commies rule” in Afghanistan. Also, don’t forget about political environment in late 1980’s - “East-West friendship”, “good gestures for West” etc. etc. It was very serious reason to leave Afghanistan.
More like it was political, economical and social defeat of Soviet Union. But definitely, it was not _military_ defeat.

>>>our conquest of Iraq.

Yeah, Iraq conquest was very serious for proud.
What was the Iraq army? A lot of untrained ragheads armed with military technology mostly from 1950s-1960s era.

[RoadGumby]

Sounds like someones Ox got a little bit gored here.

[dfwgator]

But only 4 out of 5 dentists recommend it.

[calex59]

Are those diamonds for numbers? Some watch!