Why are Missiles Tested?

Returning to the topic of placing Sarmat strategic missiles on combat duty, I would like to draw the attention of dear readers to the fact that test launches of missiles before being put into service and placed on combat duty are not carried out for the purpose of fulfilling bureaucratic procedures.

This is vitally important in order to verify in practice that the missile system is operational, that it is reliable, and that its characteristics correspond to those specified. In addition, this is necessary to identify “childhood diseases” of the rocket and eliminate them during mass production.

I repeat that since 2004 there have been FORTY!!! test launches of Bulava missiles. At the initial stage, this missile had a lot of shortcomings and unsuccessful launches followed one after another. But these launches made it possible to identify and eliminate a lot of design and production shortcomings of this missile and significantly increase its reliability. As a result, the rocket “flew”.

The tradition of conducting tests with a large number of launches dates back to Soviet times. All Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles were launched dozens of times during their adoption.

But in modern conditions, they decided to replace real test launches with computer simulations. And it seems that this is exactly what happened with Sarmat.

But the authors of this initiative forgot the famous statement of Karl Marx that only practice is the criterion of truth. And this truth was confirmed by the epic failure of the Luna-25 project. Dozens of computer simulations of the flight of this device to the Moon and its landing on the surface of this planet were carried out. All these simulations showed brilliant results. And as a result of the actual flight, a new crater appeared on the surface of the Moon, now from the fall of Luna-25.

By the way, digressing from the topic, I would like to remind you that real tests of nuclear weapons in modern conditions have also been replaced by computer modeling. What is the real state of nuclear charges? Should we trust computer modeling?

In my opinion, placing the Sarmatians on combat duty without conducting a sufficient number of test launches is a purely political decision. It seems to me that this is due to the fact that the situation with our heavy strategic missiles R-36M “Voevoda” (NATO classification “Satan”) is quite critical. They have exhausted their service life many times (missiles of the 80s) and their carrying out combat duty can lead to a serious accident.

Until 2014, technical support, extension of their service life and supply of spare parts for this were carried out by the developer and manufacturer Voevod, the Yuzhmash plant from Dnepropetrovsk. But in 2014, all ties with Yuzhmash were severed. And now we are engaged in extending the resource ourselves.

But we can assume that in this matter we do not have the necessary competence. Where do we now get components and parts to extend the service life? It’s understandable. that it is impossible to endlessly extend the life of missiles with nuclear warheads. So it’s not far from trouble.

That is why it is vitally important to remove the “Voevoda” from combat duty. What to replace them with? Only “Sarmatians”! And I assume that a political decision was made to put them on combat duty, in any technical condition, even without test launches. In order to at least on paper maintain parity with the United States in terms of the number of nuclear weapons carriers. Moreover, over the past thirty years this parity has already been lost. Today we are already seriously inferior to the United States in the number of carriers of nuclear weapons. Yes, we surpass the United States in the number of nuclear warheads. But we have nothing to deliver these warheads to their intended targets.

Sadly, it seems that the Sarmat was put on combat duty based on just one test launch. Yes, this launch was indeed successful. If you say that there probably were other successful launches, then I will give you a counter-argument — if they took place, then all the official media would be choked with delight about this. Especially against the backdrop of problems with the air defense system, failures in space, etc.

But for some reason these “successful launches” were classified. For what? It would seem that, on the contrary, it was necessary to conduct a massive information campaign in the spirit of “Made by us.” Failures and misfortunes are usually kept secret.

But in this case, “good luck” was allegedly classified. But today the propaganda of success is extremely necessary.

Firstly, this is necessary to show the population that everything is fine with our army, it is the second in the world. Our newest missiles, which have no analogues, are successfully launched and hit all designated targets. Therefore, the country’s defense capability is ensured properly.

Secondly, in six months there will be presidential elections in the Russian Federation and for campaigning, a video of missiles taking off into the sky hitting designated targets at the Kura training ground with mandatory reporting from the crater after the warhead hits is extremely necessary. As it was after the first successful launch in April 2022.

And thirdly, to clearly show our “sworn partners”, and most importantly their population, that we can still do something and that our situation is by no means hopeless.

But for some reason, everyone has been silent about successful test launches since April last year.