Register here

Author Topic: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans  (Read 51294 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8446
Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« on: November 14, 2009, 01:14:20 pm »
Russian military to get new ICBMs, nuclear submarines
 
MOSCOW: Russia's Armed Forces are to receive 30 new ground and sea-launched ballistic missiles, three nuclear submarines, and an assortment of other weapons, the Russian president said on Thursday. Dmitry Medvedev said the list would also include "five Iskander [tactical] missile complexes, about 300...
November 13th, 2009 | News | Read More

The full link - http://www.defencetalk.com/russian-military-to-get-new-icbms-nuclear-submarines-22994/
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8446
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2009, 05:44:25 pm »
Another story

MOSCOW: Russia's Strategic Missile Forces (SMF), the land-based component of the nuclear triad, will put on combat duty a second regiment equipped with Topol-M mobile missile systems by the end of 2009.

Topol-M (SS-27 Stalin) missiles are the mainstay of the ground-based component of Russia's nuclear triad. As of the beginning of 2009, the SMF operated 50 silo-based and six road-mobile Topol-M missile systems.

"We will complete the rearmament of the second missile regiment in the Teikovo division with mobile Topol-M systems," the new SMF commander, Lt. Gen. Andrei Shvaichenko told reporters in Moscow.

The first Topol-M mobile missile regiment has already been put on combat duty with the 54th Strategic Missile Division near the town of Teikovo, about 150 miles (240 km) northeast of Moscow.

Shvaichenko also said that a sixth regiment of silo-based Topol-M systems will be put in service with the Tatishchevo Missile Division near Saratov in southwestern Russia in 2010.

The Topol-M missile, with a range of about 7,000 miles (11,000 km), is said to be immune to any current and future U.S. ABM defense. It is capable of making evasive maneuvers to avoid a kill using terminal phase interceptors, and carries targeting countermeasures and decoys.

It is also shielded against radiation, electromagnetic pulse, nuclear blasts, and is designed to survive a hit from any form of laser technology.

At present, six types of silo-based and mobile ICBM systems are on combat duty with the SMF, including the heavy Voyevoda (SS-18 Satan) capable of carrying 10 warheads, and the Topol-M systems.

Shvaichenko said Russia will continue work to extend the service life of the SS-18 missiles to 31 years and the SS-25 Topol and RS-20B missiles to 23 years
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8446
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2010, 12:07:19 am »
Military.com link to SS-18 (R-36M2) missile launch - http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=212833&page=2
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8446
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2011, 12:53:20 pm »
Russia's First Yars Regiment Moved to Combat Status
Friday, March 4, 2011

Russia today ordered its first missile regiment equipped with the mobile Yars system to combat status in the Ivanovo region, ITAR-Tass reported (see GSN, July 1, 2010).

"The regiment was put on combat duty in two missile divisions," missile strategic troops spokesman Col. Vadim Koval said. "Since 2010 these divisions performed the trial combat duty missions. For this period of time all tactical and technical functions of the [Yars] missile system were proved efficient and all the missions that proved the new missile system reliable were practiced."

The land-based Yars system comes armed with a long-range RS-24 missile. The ICBM can be loaded with multiple nuclear warheads and was produced by the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology, Koval said.

"This missile was designed under scientific-technical and technological solutions applied in the Topol-M missile system that cut short substantially the deadlines and the expenses for the missile development," the spokesman said.

Koval said RS-24 ICBMs would strengthen the capabilities of the strategic missile troops to overcome missile defenses, resulting in a stronger Russian nuclear deterrent.

"This missile will replace outdated intercontinental ballistic missiles RS-18 and RS-20 with multiple warheads as long as their extended service lives expire," Koval said (ITAR-Tass, March 4).
------------------------------------------------------------
RS-24 the pirates ICBM, what kind of missile is that? A YAAARSSSS (say it as written you'll get the joke  ;D)

But on a serious note, I think the US should start to immediately start R&D, leading to production of course, of a modern ICBM with the most advanced technology available.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1529
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2011, 12:01:54 am »
Quote
bobbymikeBut on a serious note, I think the US should start to immediately start R&D, leading to production of course, of a modern ICBM with the most advanced technology available.

Yes I agree!
But do you think they can do it within budget, within the set time frame, and deliver it operationally?  :-[

Regards
Pioneer
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8446
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2011, 12:07:37 am »
Quote
bobbymikeBut on a serious note, I think the US should start to immediately start R&D, leading to production of course, of a modern ICBM with the most advanced technology available.

Yes I agree!
But do you think they can do it within budget, within the set time frame, and deliver it operationally?  :-[

Regards
Pioneer

The CINC of Stratcom, testifying before the HASC, said they are spending $200 billion on the nuclear enterprise in the next decade. I think they could make some room for an advanced ICBM prototype. The AFRL has an Rapid Prototyping Office I would hope this type of organization could be tasked to develop and test, at least a prototype, next generation missile.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8446
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2011, 05:07:52 pm »
Russia, U.S. Confer on New START
Monday, March 14, 2011

Russia on Thursday said it had received U.S. delegates in Moscow for dialogue on issues related to the observation of a new strategic nuclear arms control treaty between the former Cold War rivals, Interfax reported (see GSN, March 8).

"The session addressed a wide range of key issues of a military-political nature. Special attention was paid to the problem of missile defense, the launch of the practical realization of the New START treaty, as well as the modernization of the conventional weapons control regime in Europe," the Russian Foreign Ministry stated.

The discussion was convened by the Arms Control and International Security Working Group of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and U.S. Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher presided over the talks.

New START went into effect last month. The treaty obligates Washington and Moscow to each limit their deployed strategic nuclear weapons at 1,550, down from a limit of 2,200 required by 2012 under an earlier treaty. It also sets a ceiling of 700 deployed warhead delivery systems, with another 100 allowed in reserve (Interfax I, March 11).

Russia intends for 70 percent of its armaments to be comprised of updated weapons by the end of the decade, First Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin told the newspaper Izvestia in an interview published on Friday.

"The planned speed and scale of procurements of sophisticated models will help bring the share of replenishment of the main list of weaponry to 70 percent by 2020," Popovkin said.

"The share of modern weapons in the general arsenal [today] is about 20 percent in strategic nuclear forces and does not exceed 10 percent in the general purpose forces. For you know -- in the armies of leading foreign nations this share is 30-50 percent," the official said (Interfax II, March 11).

Russia has set aside roughly $730 billion for the acquisition of more sophisticated armaments, RIA Novosti quoted Popovkin as saying. Eight submarines armed with Bulava ballistic missiles as well as S-400 and S-500 air defenses are among the items sought by Moscow, the official said (see GSN, Feb. 28).

The nation's first concern is the sustainment and augmentation of its land-, air- and sea-based nuclear deterrent, he said (RIA Novosti, March 11).
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bolded points
1) If this treaty was sold to the American public and Senate as "having no restrictions on missile defense" what exactly are they talking about?
2) My take - US official quoted as saying, "our lowest military priority in the sustainment and augmentation of the land, air and sea based nuclear deterrent."

Proof of my second point

by Lt. Col. Rodney L. Miller
Strategic Missile Programs AFPEO/Strategic Systems

3/11/2011 - Kirtland Air Force Base, NM -- Senior leaders review progress of nuclear modernization efforts

For the first time in more than 20 years, eight flag-level leaders representing Air Force and Department of Defense acquisition organizations met March 2 at Kirtland Air Force Base to review the status of the Air Force's $3.4 billion strategic system modernization efforts.

The Strategic Systems portfolio review, led by Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, focused on the
« Last Edit: March 14, 2011, 10:11:13 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8446
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2011, 06:27:52 pm »
Russia to Ready New ICBM by 2013
Friday, March 18, 2011

Russia is expected by 2013 to finish preparation of a next-generation ICBM, Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology chief Yuri Solomonov said on Thursday (see GSN, Jan. 18). "I cannot be specific about the details but new design solutions will significantly boost the fire control and communications components of the system," the senior missile designer said in a RIA Novosti report (RIA Novosti I, March 17). The weapon's development would be funded under a massive military modernization plan, Russia Today reported. The plan -- reported previously to have a projected cost of $650 billion -- also calls for development of ICBMs capable of penetrating present-day missile defenses (see GSN, Feb. 24).

“We already have lots of ideas for the construction of these weapons,” Solomonov said. “All the decisions were approved by Russia’s Defense Ministry.” Still, some Russian experts have questioned elements of the defense initiative (Russia Today, March 17). Solomonov himself on Thursday criticized Moscow's plan to create a liquid-fueled successor to the aging RS-20 ICBM, Interfax reported. "This is an absolutely far-fetched decision, which has been made to please some high-ranking persons," he said. The expert said he was aware of the officials responsible for the decision, but declined to identify them. Developing the new missile would be "an absolutely pointless pursuit," because it would rely on antiquated systems, Solomonov said. "I can assure you that the missile would employ a 30-year-old technology," he said. The specialist also questioned "the very principle used in building this missile system, which is not viable enough in a retaliatory strike." Long liftoff phases and high altitudes mean liquid-fuel missiles are "not adaptive to modern missile defense systems having space-based elements," Solomonov said. "This problem simply cannot be resolved using liquid-fueled missiles" (Interfax I, March 17).

Solomonov criticized Russia's wider military modernization plan as "senseless spending" seeking to "reproduce things that were made decades ago for absolutely unlikely scenarios," Agence France-Presse reported (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, March 17).

Another expert said a next-generation heavy ICBM would scuttle any opportunity to establish a unified European antimissile framework (see GSN, March 16). "If we go far enough with a new heavy missile, we can forget about a new common missile defense system, if only because a new heavy missile implies a failure of negotiations on a missile defense system," said Alexei Arbatov, who heads the Russian Academy of Sciences' International Security Center. "If the new heavy missile gains momentum, there's going to be no missile defense agreement," Arbatov said, adding Washington "will interpret this new heavy missile as a return to the Cold War times."

Possible alternatives to the preparation of a new heavy ICBM include producing additional Topol-M and Yars missile systems, or negotiating further strategic arsenal cuts with the United States, he said (Interfax II, March 17). Meanwhile, Solomonov said Russia would in June conduct the 15th test flight of its Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, Feb. 28). The Bulava is designed to carry multiple nuclear warheads as far as 5,000 miles. Seven of the missile's 14 trial launches to date have been successes, including two tests conducted in October (RIA Novosti II, March 17).

"We hope to finish testing the missile this year," Interfax quoted him as saying. Russia could place the missile on active duty next year if it performs as expected in the trial flights, he said. The Bulava trials would take place during preparation of the ballistic-missile Yuri Dolgoruky, Solomonov added (see GSN, Dec. 14, 2010). "These projects should converge at one point by the end of the year," the expert said (Interfax III, March 17).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not the RS-24 or the RS-20 (R-36M, SS-18) replacement but ANOTHER brand new ICBM? What am I reading an old copy of "Soviet Military Power" from the 80's cause that's the last time, if you include SSBN, SLBM, Backfire upgrades, PAK-DA (new bomber), I read about such an aggressive nuclear delivery system modernization program.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 761
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2011, 07:20:47 am »
This is not the RS-24 or the RS-20 (R-36M, SS-18) replacement but ANOTHER brand new ICBM?

Neither probably, you're witnessing infighting on the part of MITT as proponents of solid fuel missile technology, in an attempt to scuttle the heavy liquid propellant missile project by another company that they view as encroaching on their home turf. This is almost certainly NOT an additional initiative backed officially by the state, you would probably see either this missile OR the liquid fuelled project enter service, not both.

What am I reading an old copy of "Soviet Military Power" from the 80's cause that's the last time, if you include SSBN, SLBM, Backfire upgrades, PAK-DA (new bomber), I read about such an aggressive nuclear delivery system modernization program.

They're definitely on a bit of a roll, but you have to bear in mind that much of it is overdue, so to speak: deferred from the 1990s - since when the vast majority of Russia's arsenal has stagnated in terms of modernisation. Now that more money is available, a lot of projects that have been piling up for more than a decade are getting under way simultaneously, creating an impression that perhaps seems more threatening than its actual implications. Particularly since Russia culturally favours the much more visible approach of outright replacement rather than service life extension (US MMIII - how is that NOT a new missile, to all intents and purposes?).

Also, on the submarine side a few factors which the US does not have to contend with at all come into play: safety concerns from lack of maintenance for the hulls and either liquid propellant or sovereignty issues due to significant foreign content in the SLBMs. Finally, the Backfire isn't a strategic system - if that's a problem the Russians might as well complain about the USAF upgrading its Strike Eagles - and the updates are primarily intended to improve its relevance in the conventional role (although there is a knock-on effect, of course).

Personally, I think the only programmes you can't really justify from an operational point of view are either the new heavy ICBM(s) or the RS-24. IMHO there's absolutely no need to have both, but the rest isn't really a build-up of the arsenal so much as sustainment to stabilise on the desired level after the continued decline since 1991. And as always, who knows how many of these projects will actually see the light of day in the end?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10804
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2011, 07:52:09 am »
rather than service life extension (US MMIII - how is that NOT a new missile, to all intents and purposes?).

Saying that the MMIIIs are new is like saying the B-52s are new simply because they've been updated.  The last MMIII rolled off the assembly line nearly 35 years ago.  How many Russian ICBMs are 35 years old?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8446
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2011, 09:36:17 am »
rather than service life extension (US MMIII - how is that NOT a new missile, to all intents and purposes?).

Saying that the MMIIIs are new is like saying the B-52s are new simply because they've been updated.  The last MMIII rolled off the assembly line nearly 35 years ago.  How many Russian ICBMs are 35 years old?

I started emailing members of the Long Range Strike Caucus and Strategic Forces Subcommittee expressing my alarm over the state of the Triad, especially its' land based component, and the decaying nuclear enterprise. Yes I know what the word futile means  ;)

Trident - sorry I meant Blackjack upgrades. Also if you look at the date mentioned in the article - 2013 - that means a lot of work has been done on this system could this be the studied yet canceled, in the 90's, SS-24 replacement? If so will it be able to carry ten warheads?

The Russians are very curiously building systems capable of being uploaded with many more warheads than the 1550 allowed under New Start. Why all the extra capability?  In a recent congressional hearing on strategic forces the CINC Stratcom indicated that modernization of nuclear forces will be built to the 1550 limit, one example reducing the number of missile tubes on the SSBN(X) from Trident's 24 to 16, because building more, entailing a larger sub of course, would be a waste of funds.

America's actions seem to reflect the New Start reality while Russia's reflect a Cold War mindset. Am I paranoid? What would people be saying if the US was, after New Start, proposing a MX replacement?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7018
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2011, 10:24:52 am »
What would people be saying if the US was, after New Start, proposing a MX replacement?

"About time!"
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 761
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2011, 11:50:53 am »
Also if you look at the date mentioned in the article - 2013 - that means a lot of work has been done on this system could this be the studied yet canceled, in the 90's, SS-24 replacement? If so will it be able to carry ten warheads?

No idea how realistic that date is and what the underlying assumptions are. Remember, as of now this is a company project which most likely has no state commitment yet, you are essentially listening to the opinions of a lobbyist there. I'm not up to date on what specific work MITT has previously undertaken on a missile in this class, either.

The Russians are very curiously building systems capable of being uploaded with many more warheads than the 1550 allowed under New Start. Why all the extra capability?  In a recent congressional hearing on strategic forces the CINC Stratcom indicated that modernization of nuclear forces will be built to the 1550 limit, one example reducing the number of missile tubes on the SSBN(X) from Trident's 24 to 16, because building more, entailing a larger sub of course, would be a waste of funds.

America's actions seem to reflect the New Start reality while Russia's reflect a Cold War mindset. Am I paranoid? What would people be saying if the US was, after New Start, proposing a MX replacement?

I propose a slightly different rationale on Russia's part. Most probably, the new delivery systems would already be uploaded to their maximum potential from the outset, allowing the country to utilise their warhead allowance with the minimum number of costly delivery vehicles. As for why Russia would want to maintain an arsenal that is so much larger than they actually need, it's probably a kind of status symbol to them. I'll be the first to admit that this isn't entirely rational, but it is the way it is.

Be that as it may, it's worth mentioning that Russia's new SSBN/SLBM combination also represents a reduction - the Typhoon subs carried 20 missiles rather than 16 for the Borei class and both the SS-N-23 and SS-N-20 had higher throw-weights than the new Bulava.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8446
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2011, 04:27:00 pm »
What would people be saying if the US was, after New Start, proposing a MX replacement?

"About time!"

Scott L a real full LOL, thanks!

Well besides me, you and sferrin  :D
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3148
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2011, 02:28:19 am »
Both the Bulava and the RS24 appear to be as loaded up as they can get without a significant reduction in Russian warhead size. Far fro seeing Russia trying to create a force that can rapidly increase the number of warheads it can deliver beyond treaty limitations, it seems probable that they are focussing on developing their penetration capabilities.