@AndersBreiner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56_Bulava vs Sineva/Lainer.
It is standard Russian methodology in anything to have plan B. They do it in life, they do it in engineering acrosss the board. If you have every worked with them you would have run across this one. It pisses off British and American PHBs immensely - most of them cannot comprehend the idea of investing into plan B day one, they invest into it only when Plan A has failed by which point it is too late.
They also do it with their weapons. An example of how this distinctly Russian way of doing things would have translated to American thinking would have been a full upgrade and life extension of A10 in parallel with doing the F35. See yanks doing it? I do not, not their way of thinking. It is the latest and the greatest or bust.
When the Russians run an advanced project with a significant risk or delay probability they always also run another project in parallel which uses a tested and proven (but more conservative) tech to achieve a reasonable compromise in terms of functionality.
That is exactly the case here. Bulava differs from most SLBMs - it uses a very low trajectory "just in case" the opponent has space or land based mid-course interceptor defenses. It also is designed to deploy hypersonic terminal glide warheads in the future. It was always EXPECTED to have a high failure rate.
In the meantime, while everyone has been paying attention to the Bulava/Borei program, the Russians have IN PARALLEL done the Plan B. With virtually no failures. The result is Sineva/Lainer. It will not fly low so there is some chance intercepting it. It is not designed to carry super-duper special next generation warheads. It can, however carry 16 of them - 4 more than Trident D5. Plenty enough as a deterrent.
And if Bulava works, that gives them a massive one up. If not - they are at least at parity.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
