Sineva and Bulava launch videos.

Sounds very similar to the one on the SS-18 but simpler.

…… Or could the gas generator be sized large enough to push the missile out of the cell like from a cork gun?

This is correct i think.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rockets_slbm.html
2003 Dec. 11: First “throw” tests of the Bulava missile from Dmitry Donskoi sub from the surface position. A solid-propellant pressure generator, PAD, sent a dummy of the missile to the altitude of several dozens of meters.

More info about the PAD: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/r36m.html
The “cold launch” concept

Upon its final assembly at its manufacturing plant in Dnepropetrovsk, the R-36M would be encapsulated into a canister made from reinforced fiberglass and designated 15Ya53. The container isolated the missile from the environment, thus extending its operational life.

The “cold launch” system, first implemented in the R-36M missile, was designed to eject the rocket from the silo with the help of a special Powder Pressure Generator, or PAD. The main propulsion system of the missile would then ignite in midair. Installed in the silo, the PAD generator was capable of sending a 210-ton vehicle up to 20 meters into the air, where the missile’s engine would come alive. The “cold launch” technique allowed the deployment of missiles in smaller and cheaper silos without complex exhaust deflection systems required for the R-36 missiles, which fired its engines inside the silo. (86)

The PAD generator for the R-36M missile was developed in cooperation between KB Yuzhnoe and LNPO Soyuz in the town of Lubertsy near Moscow.

The pressurized gas generated by the PAD would push a special cap, which shielded the tail section of the missile. After leaving the silo, the cap would separate from the missile with special springs and three powder motors would then push it away.

This is probably what we see in the video you posted Sferrin, i was wrong when i said nosecap.

I think what we see on the Bulava is a further development of this launch method.

First used on SS-N-17: http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.151/missile_detail.asp
“The SS-N-17 used a new underwater launch system, the first that did not use a flooded launch tube. Rather, the missile was ejected with a pressure accumulator and surfaced in cavitation mode, basically carried to the surface in a gas bubble. The first-stage engine ignited after the missile reached the surface.”

The first stage on the Bulava is started after the missile exits water

It’s interesting that the SS-N-23 commerical launches also happened from a submerged position. Does it mean it can ONLY fire submerged?

See 1st post.

Have to agree, watched that video too when searching for that other Bulava launch i mentioned. Hard to tell if what we see is coming from the back end of the missile. Even if it is different than this video, that does not prove they do not use same tech, i would expect som differences in launch sequence anyway since this is a new missile. I thought dry launch was the “normal” for solid fuel missiles? Read comments in this blog, they talk about wet/dry launched Bulava/Trident. http://russianforces.org/blog/2008/07/bulava_to_resume_flight_tests.shtml

There is a video on youtube (?) showing a test launch of a M51, where the bubbles coming from a ring at around below the MIRV-bus can be seen quite nicely. Guess the Russian way of doing things is not different. And my guess is also that they have to flood the cell for a surfaced launch, since otherwise they would have to start the rocket motor inside the cell, which I think is not do-able for the lack of venting. Or could the gas generator be sized large enough to push the missile out of the cell like from a cork gun?

It’s interesting that the SS-N-23 commerical launches also happened from a submerged position. Does it mean it can ONLY fire submerged?

Have to agree, watched that video too when searching for that other Bulava launch i mentioned. Hard to tell if what we see is coming from the back end of the missile.

Actually it’s pretty obviously not coming off the front.

What you’re seeing came off the back end. Go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSn6_p8DTww

Just a whee bit different don’t you think?

Have to agree, watched that video too when searching for that other Bulava launch i mentioned. Hard to tell if what we see is coming from the back end of the missile. Even if it is different than this video, that does not prove they do not use same tech, i would expect som differences in launch sequence anyway since this is a new missile. I thought dry launch was the “normal” for solid fuel missiles? Read comments in this blog, they talk about wet/dry launched Bulava/Trident. http://russianforces.org/blog/2008/07/bulava_to_resume_flight_tests.shtml

Sorry, not from the submarine launched clip. You can barely see it at 0:19, you may have to pause several times. I have seen it in another video also but can’t find it. If anyone have more info about the Bulava launch method please post.

What you’re seeing came off the back end. Go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSn6_p8DTww

Just a whee bit different don’t you think?

Nice video clips

Could you just imagine being a fishman out in quite ocean, when in the middle of the night you see this night launch (as per video clip!)
You would **** yourself!!!!!!!:eek:

That would probbably be a quite a scary surprise, yes… But havent you heard about that Japanese fishing thrawler that all of a sudden had a Chicago class SSN commig crashing through its hull last year?. Geee, talk about a nasty surprise! And bad luck. I mean, what are the odds?? Your peacefully cruiseing around in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, perhaps sipping on a good cup of coffee or reading your favourite Hentai porno, and all of a sudden a freaking nuke-sub hits you like a runaway train while surfaceing… :confused: Boy, thats bad luck! As bad as it gets. And quite a surprise too, Im sure.

BTW the thrawler sunk and most of the Japs drowned, so its quite a sad story really. Nothing to joke about, so I hope none of the spirits of the dead sailors feel offended by this post in any way..

So where did you see this; “You can see the missile nosecap drop some seconds after water exit” in the video?

Sorry, not from the submarine launched clip. You can barely see it at 0:19, you may have to pause several times. I have seen it in another video also but can’t find it. If anyone have more info about the Bulava launch method please post.

Yes i did, i see no underwater launch of the missile, only one shot where they open the hatch. I am just pointing out that the tube does not need to be flooded before launch. How in detail this is done i am not sure of, i thought they used same method as R-39

So where did you see this; “You can see the missile nosecap drop some seconds after water exit” in the video?

Did you even watch the Bulava video I posted above?

Yes i did, i see no underwater launch of the missile, only one shot where they open the hatch. I am just pointing out that the tube does not need to be flooded before launch. How in detail this is done i am not sure of, i thought they used same method as R-39

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Outside_View_Drop_Bulava_back_Sineva_999.html

“A more serious obstacle could be that the Bulava SLBM is launched via a “dry start” with solid-state pressure accumulators, while the Sineva requires a preliminary filling of the launch tube with off-board waters.”

You may be right, but all available sources says the Bulava is dry launched, the tube is not filled with water before launch. You can see the missile nosecap drop some seconds after water exit, i assumed they used same launch method as R-39.

Did you even watch the Bulava video I posted above?

Bulava does not have the cavetator like the R-39. Watch videos of the two and it’s obvious.

You may be right, but all available sources says the Bulava is dry launched, the tube is not filled with water before launch. You can see the missile nosecap drop some seconds after water exit, i assumed they used same launch method as R-39.

Bulava is a dry launch missile like the Sturgeon (both solid-propellant missiles). During lift-off special solid-propellant charges create a gas bubble around the missile considerably reducing hydrodynamic resistance. Ignition of the first stage engine occurs after leaving the tube.

I do not think the humpback has anything to do with clearance for launching through ice. The missile length is the reason, you see the same thing on boomers from other nations, but russian humbacks is more distinct and less streamlined. The reason for Typhoon not having this is because it is so damn big, the two rows of tubes are situated in front of the sail between the main hulls.

Bulava does not have the cavetator like the R-39. Watch videos of the two and it’s obvious.

Nice video clips

Could you just imagine being a fishman out in quite ocean, when in the middle of the night you see this night launch (as per video clip!)
You would **** yourself!!!!!!!:eek:

Regards
Pioneer

Bulava is a dry launch missile like the Sturgeon (both solid-propellant missiles). During lift-off special solid-propellant charges create a gas bubble around the missile considerably reducing hydrodynamic resistance. Ignition of the first stage engine occurs after leaving the tube.

I do not think the humpback has anything to do with clearance for launching through ice. The missile length is the reason, you see the same thing on boomers from other nations, but russian humbacks is more distinct and less streamlined. The reason for Typhoon not having this is because it is so damn big, the two rows of tubes are situated in front of the sail between the main hulls.

Nice clips , both SLBM has impressive Boost Phase acceleration , for Sineva it does not show here though , there are couple of video in youtube will display that.

I dont think they have to flood the cell for surface launch , they can just dry cold launch it.

I think it has to do with the length of the missiles primarily, amplified by the double-hull design of the Deltas. Keeping it above the ice might have been a beneficial side effect.

The first video shows a surfaced launch. Wonder if they have to flood the cell, or if they can dry launch Bulava.

If so you’d expect the humpback to be tall on earlier Delta variants (with their shorter missiles) too. Although it may help under ice operations, the primary motivation seems to have been increased silo length with each iteration. The R-29RM is a pretty long missile (more than a metre longer than Trident D5) while the Delta hull is one metre less in diametre than an Ohio SSBN. Keep in mind at this point that this is the outer hull in the Delta’s case – if you don’t want to have the missile tubes penetrate the actual pressure hull on the bottom as well, you’ll have even less internal space to work with. All in all, there’s probably about 3 meters of R-29 that you’re not going to fit inside a Delta, plus silo accessories on top and bottom, which looks about right for the humpback height.

P.S.: nice clips, the Sineva launch was new to me 🙂