Register here

Author Topic: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans  (Read 51210 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8440
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #30 on: May 26, 2011, 07:23:58 am »
Liner is probably little more than a Sineva with a different warhead configuration (ISTR Sineva carries four, maybe the new one has more of a smaller design? The basic missile definitely has the throw weight to handle a lot more than just 4!). Would also explain how it could be developed so quickly, much like the RS-24 is basically a MIRVed Topol-M.

I would be curious to know whether the US intelligence services knew of this missile, derivative of Sineva or not, and if not it would seem awfully worrisome to reduce to 1550 warheads and 700 launchers under New Start if we don't know what the Russians are building. There is still an SS-18 replacement out there somewhere apparently. 
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 stew3

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #31 on: May 26, 2011, 01:13:13 pm »
The US is blissfully slumbering in willful ignorance as to the nature and capability of Russia and the true nature of the post Cold War world, IMHO.  We deserve whatever we get.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10788
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #32 on: May 26, 2011, 07:28:18 pm »
The US is blissfully slumbering in willful ignorance as to the nature and capability of Russia and the true nature of the post Cold War world, IMHO.  We deserve whatever we get.

Worse than that.  Zero, in his magnificent arrogance, has his foot stomped firmly down on the accelerator while headed of a cliff.  And he thinks everybody else will be stupid enough to follow him.  In the real world though they're just pointing and laughing.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8440
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #33 on: July 21, 2011, 05:00:28 pm »
 New ICBM Planned in Russia: Report Tuesday, July 19, 2011     

Russia's Defense Ministry is completing the initial design for a new liquid-fuel, 15-warhead ICBM capable of hitting nearly any location in the Northern Hemisphere, the Russian newspaper Izvestia reported on Tuesday.   Moscow has provided $27.5 billion for preparation of the new nuclear-tipped ICBM, the newspaper reported. The first experimental model is slated for assembly at an armed forces site at Chelyabinsk, and fielding of the weapon is scheduled to start in nine years, Deutsche Presse-Agentur quoted the report as saying.


The new ICBM world succeed the SS-18 Satan missile, a Cold War-era weapon now occupying a central role in Russian plans for countering a potential nuclear attack, according to DPA. The large majority of the 58 SS-18 missiles now operationally deployed in Russian underground launch facilities are targeting counterpart firing sites in China and the United States, according to Western specialists.


Stealth components and other features included with the future ICBM would make its independently targeted warheads "impossible" to shoot down, according to Izvestia, which suggested the missile would emerge as the world's highest-performing nuclear offensive technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------
With only "supposedly" 1550 warheads allowed under New Start, the purpose of this missile is?

 
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 Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7726
  • The path not taken.
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #34 on: July 22, 2011, 04:24:51 am »
---------------------------------------------------------------
With only "supposedly" 1550 warheads allowed under New Start, the purpose of this missile is?
 

A very good question indeed.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10788
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #35 on: July 22, 2011, 04:43:56 am »
Good thing we got that shiny new treaty.   ::)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8440
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2011, 05:41:07 am »
Compare and contrast: (Excerpted from an article written by Mark B. Schneider, a senior analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy, served until 2011 in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.)

[The US] "in 2030 we will have 60-year-old ICBMs, 40-year-old submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and 35- to 70-year-old bombers. The earliest possible follow-up to the Minuteman ICBM is in 2030. A Trident SLBM replacement is not projected until 2042........ .............the effectiveness of every element of the U.S. nuclear deterrent will decline over the next 20 years. Worse still, in 2008, the Defense Science Board concluded that “industrial base skills . . . are in danger of significant further erosion in the areas of ballistic missiles.” The termination of NASA’s Aries space-booster program makes this situation worse"
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 Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #37 on: July 22, 2011, 08:56:53 pm »

With only "supposedly" 1550 warheads allowed under New Start, the purpose of this missile is?


 Just because it can carry 15 RVs of a normal sort on paper doesn’t mean it will end up being deployed like that. Alternative payload deliver systems like a boost glide system weigh a lot more and would greatly push down warhead counts while being far more survivable against the current generation of ABM systems.

 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8440
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #38 on: July 22, 2011, 11:01:29 pm »

With only "supposedly" 1550 warheads allowed under New Start, the purpose of this missile is?


 Just because it can carry 15 RVs of a normal sort on paper doesn’t mean it will end up being deployed like that. Alternative payload deliver systems like a boost glide system weigh a lot more and would greatly push down warhead counts while being far more survivable against the current generation of ABM systems.

 

Which of course everyone on this forum would know and is completely irrelevant to the my question of why such a system is needed. Proper analysis of the information in the article would cover the actual information in the article and not pure speculation. How do we know that the new missiles throw weight cannot already accommodate 15 future light weight boost glide systems.

Rather than just speculate if you look at the actual article it states the the warheads to be deployed on the new system will have stealth characteristics able to defeat future ABM systems.

New Start allows 700 strategic launchers (with 100 as spares) deploying a maximum of 1550 warheads. As important, this system will begin to deploy right at the time the treaty is to expire 2020. If you were a Pentagon planner would not such a systems development alarm you also given the fact that the Russians are deploying an new Sineva derivative (capable of ten warheads), Bulava (ten warheads) and another new ICBM the RS-24?

One commentator remarked that the Russians are modernizing their forces faster than at any time since the end of the Cold War at a time when a new arms control treaty has just been signed lowering warhead count to their lowest levels since the 60's.

A defense planner should be able to ask why.
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 SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1165
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #39 on: July 22, 2011, 11:22:10 pm »
If you were a Pentagon planner would not such a systems development alarm you also given the fact that the Russians are deploying an new Sineva derivative (capable of ten warheads), Bulava (ten warheads) and another new ICBM the RS-24?

Not at all:  Gates would've been my boss, I'd have been too busy being alarmed about the implications of that  ;D

One commentator remarked that the Russians are modernizing their forces faster than at any time since the end of the Cold War at a time when a new arms control treaty has just been signed lowering warhead count to their lowest levels since the 60's.

A defense planner should be able to ask why.

They're modernizing faster and faster compared to the end of the Cold War in part because they finally have the money to do it.  A big portion of the RVSN is the road-mobile Topol, and they're beginning to reach their service life limits.  Hence the RS-24.  SATAN reaches the end of it's life soon, hence the new liquid-fueled missile being considered.  Bulava is a ridiculously expensive failure, likely explaining the new Sineva derivative.  Plus, the Sineva derivative and RS-24 were going to appear a lot quicker anyway, being that they weren't clean sheet of paper designs.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8440
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #40 on: July 22, 2011, 11:57:44 pm »
If you were a Pentagon planner would not such a systems development alarm you also given the fact that the Russians are deploying an new Sineva derivative (capable of ten warheads), Bulava (ten warheads) and another new ICBM the RS-24?

Not at all:  Gates would've been my boss, I'd have been too busy being alarmed about the implications of that  ;D

One commentator remarked that the Russians are modernizing their forces faster than at any time since the end of the Cold War at a time when a new arms control treaty has just been signed lowering warhead count to their lowest levels since the 60's.

A defense planner should be able to ask why.

They're modernizing faster and faster compared to the end of the Cold War in part because they finally have the money to do it.  A big portion of the RVSN is the road-mobile Topol, and they're beginning to reach their service life limits.  Hence the RS-24.  SATAN reaches the end of it's life soon, hence the new liquid-fueled missile being considered.  Bulava is a ridiculously expensive failure, likely explaining the new Sineva derivative.  Plus, the Sineva derivative and RS-24 were going to appear a lot quicker anyway, being that they weren't clean sheet of paper designs.

I'm kind of hoping this type of news spurs the US into developing a Peacekeeper + sized MMIII replacement first for prompt global strike and then for the future land based strategic deterrent mission.
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 SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1165
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2011, 12:36:52 am »
Whatever replaces Minuteman we've already dropped the biggest ball, fumbling away an opportunity to solve multiple problems:  the B-3 will be an air-breather.

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #42 on: July 24, 2011, 07:05:13 pm »
 

 Which of course everyone on this forum would know and is completely irrelevant to the my question of why such a system is needed.
Actually its not, but you seem like you want to throw a fit for the sake of doing so like half the people on these forums. This reminds me why I rarely post.

Quote
Proper analysis of the information in the article would cover the actual information in the article and not pure speculation.
What information, its a couple sentences? You only want analysis on that; well guess what that’s impossible to draw any conclusions from so why did you even ask the question? Any rational analysis at all will work by pulling in other information, a lot of it.

Quote

How do we know that the new missiles throw weight cannot already accommodate 15 future light weight boost glide systems.
Volume constraints make that unlikely unless this missile is going to be so big it needs new and very expensive silos.


 
Quote

 Rather than just speculate if you look at the actual article it states the the warheads to be deployed on the new system will have stealth characteristics able to defeat future ABM systems.
And since nothing about a conventional RV can be stealthy, that already indicates it’s probably something much different, like boost glide. Guess I read the article after all hun? Of course you might have noticed, and this is amazingly, not in the article, Russia has already been claiming it has highly stealthy ABM defeating warheads… so why would they need a new missile for that? Maybe because stealth RVs don't work, and Russia has a long track record of highly political motivations to lie about its existing military capabilities, and often tells contradictory lies about the US ABM system? One day US ABM is the ultimate threat to Russia, the next day Russian super warheads are totally immune to all ABM weapons ect… Meanwhile the US says stealth on RVs doesn’t work, and is working on its own boost glide systems on which these forums already have extensive threads. Funny no?
 
Quote

 New Start allows 700 strategic launchers (with 100 as spares) deploying a maximum of 1550 warheads. As important, this system will begin to deploy right at the time the treaty is to expire 2020. If you were a Pentagon planner would not such a systems development alarm you also given the fact that the Russians are deploying an new Sineva derivative (capable of ten warheads), Bulava (ten warheads) and another new ICBM the RS-24?
Russia has a GPD 1/10th that of the United States, no I can’t say I would be terribly worried about them starting a new nuclear arms race and bankrupting themselves again. Especially not with static silo based weapons. They have a clear need to replace existing missiles which are for the most part, very old, and not modernized in the comprehensive manner as was done to the US Minuteman force. Beyond that, anything you can think or dream on WHY is speculation. A high payload missile could be desired for a number of reasons, some far less hostile then others. The very fact that the US is likely to have some kind of boost or ascent phase ABM capability by the 2030s already makes a high warhead count missile a dumb option for countering ABM, which makes it in fact rather reasonable to speculate that they have no intention is actually loading the thing with that many warheads. You might recall that several different US ballistic missiles did not carry full warhead counts in service in ordered to provide more missile cross range and stay within treaty limits, and that the USSR loaded many of its ICBMs with varying warhead and yield counts. This would be nothing new.

Quote

 A defense planner should be able to ask why.
 
And without speculating on the future situation, on possible payloads, sensors and countermeasures such a question is an impossible one. But you asked it anyway didn't you? What do you expect as an answer that isn't pure speculation? Someone with a secret tap on the Russian Defense Ministry phone lines to show up?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2011, 07:09:53 pm by Sea Skimmer »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8440
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #43 on: July 24, 2011, 07:35:52 pm »
Sea Skimmer - See I actually like your second post better. I hardly think I threw a fit, do you? So in your second post if you take out the snark and sarcasm it contains some good information. 

But my concern remains with the pace of Russian modernization coupled with the relative decline and current precarious state of the US Triad and nuclear enterprise. I see a fully modernized Russian nuclear force with huge warhead upload capability in the 2020 timeframe but at the same time another decade of US neglect of the nuclear deterrent mission and continued aging systems.
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 Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans
« Reply #44 on: July 24, 2011, 08:47:51 pm »
Sea Skimmer - See I actually like your second post better. I hardly think I threw a fit, do you? So in your second post if you take out the snark and sarcasm it contains some good information.

 Well, yeah that might be a an exaggeration; but frankly I have not found the reception at this place very warm at all. I’m not the nicest person myself either but even in the tiny amount of time I’ve spent here I’ve already seen a number of posters go nuts over pretty dumb stuff. 
 
Quote

But my concern remains with the pace of Russian modernization coupled with the relative decline and current precarious state of the US Triad and nuclear enterprise. I see a fully modernized Russian nuclear force with huge warhead upload capability in the 2020 timeframe but at the same time another decade of US neglect of the nuclear deterrent mission and continued aging systems.

The Russians are certainly stepping up modernization, but that and the reduced state of US nuclear forces are directly related to the utter decay of Russia nuclear and strategic defensive systems from 1991 into the early 2000s. Russia also lost a great deal of its strategic depth, and already faces a vast superiority of NATO conventional firepower. We are at the point at which F-16 raids on Moscow could be reasonable. Its simply lost its place in the world, making a conflict that could escalate into a nuclear war dramatically less likely. I certainly see a need to upgrade US nuclear forces, but it is now fairly independent of whatever Russia feels like spending money on. I'd much rather see the brunt of the money spent on defensive systems and conventional weapons that might actually be useful. Certainly US conventional superiority is not at all in doubt. With the US continuing to produce Trident D-5 and finally allocating money for a new bomber project office; though not yet an actual plane, as well as working on new ICBM reentry vehicles and new launch systems for future attack submarines my only real concern lies in if the nuclear warheads will actually work. But I also grow more convinced by the day that the non full scale testing methods being used will work. Our first nukes worked without testing after all more then a half a century ago. But like I was saying, this issue is kind of independent of the specifics of Russian deployments. We do not need to match them missile project for missile project anymore.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2011, 08:56:51 pm by Sea Skimmer »