Actually proving that a source is flawed and not what you say it is is a great way of winning the argument.:rolleyes:
Not to mention the second source you posted uses exactly the same wording as the first, again without direct qoutes, and almost certainly took it from the same place. Unless you can provide a direct qoute from an official we will have to follow the facts. And they are that a Topol-M is approximately 50% taller than a Bulava whilst the Bulava is wider. Furthermore if the Bulava was derived from the Topol-M one would expect the launch program to have been far more successful and speedier than it has been.
Not necessarily, they could have taken the majority of components from Topol-M and essentially resized the “tube” to better fit the Borei Class Subs. This means the failures could be as a result of re-shaping and re-configuring the missile. It’s also a clear the word “derivative” means different things for some people, but there’s no way so many articles are making up stories about how the Bulava is a derivative of the Topol-M, it’s something Masorin said, and quite frankly, he probably knows what’s he’s saying.
Ie, a new tube with a similar or modified motor, similar warheads? similar guidance system, etc.
I’d say that’s enough to be a derivative of something.
I mean just look at the Su-34 an Su-27, new radar, new avionics, new cockpit, yet similar airframe.
Almost like a reverse situation.
Sign In
