• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
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/
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
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
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
Military.com link to SS-18 (R-36M2) missile launch - http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=212833&page=2
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
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.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,666
Reaction score
35
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
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
Pioneer said:
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
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
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
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.
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
821
Reaction score
18
bobbymike said:
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.

bobbymike said:
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?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,949
Reaction score
289
Trident said:
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?
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
sferrin said:
Trident said:
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?
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
821
Reaction score
18
bobbymike said:
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.

bobbymike said:
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
Orionblamblam said:
bobbymike said:
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
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,184
Reaction score
58
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
Russia to Purchase 36 ICBMs in 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011

Russia intends to purchase 36 ICBMs and a pair of ballistic-missile submarines in 2011, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said on Friday (see GSN, March 18).

The procurements would be funded under Russia's decade-long military modernization plan, RIA Novosti quoted Serdyukov as saying at a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and senior military officials. The plan's projected cost exceeds $670 billion, he said; the program's anticipated expense was previously reported to be $650 billion (RIA Novosti I, March 18).

Meanwhile, a high-level Russian navy insider said a future ballistic-missile submarine would also carry cruise missiles. Moscow in February indicated it would prepare the fifth-generation ballistic missile submarine by 2020 as part of its military modernization effort.

Russia also intends to construct by 2020 eight earlier-generation ballistic-missile submarines it would arm with the new Bulava ballistic missile. The Bulava missile is slated to be placed on active duty in 2011 (RIA Novosti II, March 19).
---------------------------------------

Putin Announces Doubling of Missile Production
By NABI ABDULLAEV
Published: 21 Mar 2011 15:22

MOSCOW - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said March 21 that Russia will double production of missile systems beginning in 2013 as the government plans to spend $2.7 billion to launch their serial production until 2020. "New missile weapons, strategic and tactical, such as Yars, Bulava and Iskander-M, will enter service, and beginning in 2013 the production output of missile systems should effectively double," Putin said. Speaking in Votkinsk at a government meeting dedicated to the $670 billion 2011-2020 state arms procurement program, Putin added that the local Votkinsk plant will get $340 million for its modernization within the next three years. Other companies involved in the same production chain with the Votkinsk plant will get $190 million to upgrade their equipment in the next three years, the prime minister said.

The Votkinsk plant, launched in the Volga region Udmurtia republic in 1984, produces the Topol-M, Yars and Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles, which are expected to remain the core of Russia's strategic nuclear forces for decades ahead. Putin, who visited the plant March 21, called it "the most key one in the whole industry," adding that it will enjoy guaranteed state defense orders. Under the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty between Russia and the United States, which went into effect in February, both countries should have up to 1,550 nuclear warheads and 700 deployed launchers. According to the official disclosure, Russia now has more than 4,000 nuclear warheads and over 800 deployed launchers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4000 deployed warheads and increasing missile production, new ICBMs, new Marv, active warhead production lines. Did we just sign a new arms control treaty or is Brezhnev back in office?
 

Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
46
Reaction score
1
sferrin said:
Trident said:
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?

They are new to the degree that most of the guidance system has been replaced with modern electronics, and the rocket motors have been remanufactured with new propellant charges. And there have been other programmes in which new technology has replacing earlier Minuteman hardware. The RVs and warheads came from the scrapped Peacekeeper force, so are not the originals.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,949
Reaction score
289
Mercurius Cantabrigiensis said:
sferrin said:
Trident said:
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?

They are new to the degree that most of the guidance system has been replaced with modern electronics, and the rocket motors have been remanufactured with new propellant charges. And there have been other programmes in which new technology has replacing earlier Minuteman hardware. The RVs and warheads came from the scrapped Peacekeeper force, so are not the originals.
IIRC wasn't the regraining of the motors a step backwards? I seem to remember reading that due to formulation changes for environmental concerns that it lost ISP and thus range.
 

xmotex

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Heaven forfend our nuclear missiles not be environmentally friendly :eek:
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
sferrin said:
Mercurius Cantabrigiensis said:
sferrin said:
Trident said:
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?

They are new to the degree that most of the guidance system has been replaced with modern electronics, and the rocket motors have been remanufactured with new propellant charges. And there have been other programmes in which new technology has replacing earlier Minuteman hardware. The RVs and warheads came from the scrapped Peacekeeper force, so are not the originals.
IIRC wasn't the regraining of the motors a step backwards? I seem to remember reading that due to formulation changes for environmental concerns that it lost ISP and thus range.
sferrin - that's why we need a new ultra modern MMIII replacement. Under the IHPRPT program new solid rocket formulations of high ISP have been tested. Plus in my mind we really need to exercise our ICBM industrial base right from research through to production. It would include the best technology in every aspect of the missile. I would start that today so that you had a lot of time to ensure the new technology works prior to "having" to replace MMIII.

I think Aerojet or ATK tested a 72" diameter first stage for "future strategic strike applications" (MMIII is 66" I believe) with IHPRPT systems. I would look to double MMIII throw weight allowing uploading of up to five or six warheads of 475 kt W87's in case the current "path to zero" is thrown off track.
 

RLBH

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
198
Reaction score
14
bobbymike said:
I would look to double MMIII throw weight allowing uploading of up to five or six warheads of 475 kt W87's in case the current "path to zero" is thrown off track.
The other consideration that makes a high throw weight missile attractive is that, offloaded, it has high delta-V, allowing a wider range of trajectories for the same target set. This can be attractive for reasons of overflight rights - if the US had cause to conduct a limited strike against targets in (say) Iran or North Korea, the Russians would almost certainly object to taking the direct route over their country. If you can put a higher-performance (but heavier) bus on the missile, crossrange might be increased to the point where overflights aren't necessary for some targets.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
RLBH said:
bobbymike said:
I would look to double MMIII throw weight allowing uploading of up to five or six warheads of 475 kt W87's in case the current "path to zero" is thrown off track.
The other consideration that makes a high throw weight missile attractive is that, offloaded, it has high delta-V, allowing a wider range of trajectories for the same target set. This can be attractive for reasons of overflight rights - if the US had cause to conduct a limited strike against targets in (say) Iran or North Korea, the Russians would almost certainly object to taking the direct route over their country. If you can put a higher-performance (but heavier) bus on the missile, crossrange might be increased to the point where overflights aren't necessary for some targets.
It is interesting you say that because options for a MMIII replacement in the 2004 ICBM replacement AoA the Air Force did was for ranges up to 26,000 km and that this same missile could be used for conventional prompt global strike. The long range was for that very reason. Also as to not overfly Russia or other sensitive countries a South Pole launch was even contemplated to hit targets in places like Iran. A southern launch would definitely have a different trajectory than a normal nuke launch.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
Russia to Boost Ballistic Missile Manufacturing, Putin Says
Thursday, April 21, 2011

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Wednesday asserted that beginning in 2013 the nation would double the number of ballistic missiles it manufactures, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, April 12). "The armed forces will receive new strategic and tactical missile systems, such as RS-24 Yars, Bulava and Iskander M," Putin said in his yearly speech to Russian lawmakers. In March, Putin said Moscow would spend $2.6 billion on the manufacturing of ballistic missiles in accordance with an armed forces update plan. Missile producers, including a factory in Votkinsk, in the coming three years are to receive $500 million to bolster their manufacturing capabilities, Putin said. "The financing will gradually increase in the future," he said (RIA Novosti, April 20).
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
Russia to Field Missile Defense-Evading ICBM by 2018
Thursday, May 5, 2011

Russia intends no later than 2018 to field an all-new ICBM with the capacity to evade missile defenses, including systems based in outer space, the Xinhua News Agency reported on Thursday (see GSN, March 18). The long-range heavy ballistic missile would be an entirely new weapon and not a copy of the existing Voevoda system, one-time Russian nuclear missile chief Viktor Yesin said. The planned fifth-generation ICBM would be designed to defeat missile defenses, while its launch facilities are also to be shielded with protective antimissile systems, Yesin said. The ICBM could be fired "within seconds" of a launch order, he added. The new ICBM, combined with the current Yars and Topol-M missiles, would establish for Russia a first-strike capability with the ability to eliminate threats posed by an opponent's antimissile systems, Yesin said.
------------------------------------------------------------------
So this is what the "reset" button with Russia gets us? We neglect our Triad and nuclear weapons enterprise and Russia develops a first strike [their words] "heavy" ICBM?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,949
Reaction score
289
I thought the magic TOPOL was suppose to make missile defenses obsolete. Funny thing is US ICBMs have always been able to fire "within seconds" of launch order. ISTR reading even back in the 80s that the Minutman fleets reaction time was under 30 seconds.
 

stew3

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Haven't the Russians always made pretty bold claims though? I think it stems from their historic inferiority complex and feeling of having to catch up with the west. Not that what they make is junk, although sometimes that is the case as well.
 

stew3

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
bobbymike said:
Russia to Boost Ballistic Missile Manufacturing, Putin Says
Thursday, April 21, 2011

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Wednesday asserted that beginning in 2013 the nation would double the number of ballistic missiles it manufactures, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, April 12). "The armed forces will receive new strategic and tactical missile systems, such as RS-24 Yars, Bulava and Iskander M," Putin said in his yearly speech to Russian lawmakers. In March, Putin said Moscow would spend $2.6 billion on the manufacturing of ballistic missiles in accordance with an armed forces update plan. Missile producers, including a factory in Votkinsk, in the coming three years are to receive $500 million to bolster their manufacturing capabilities, Putin said. "The financing will gradually increase in the future," he said (RIA Novosti, April 20).
How does this compare with Obama's promise (we will see) to spend several billion on updating our nuclear weapons complex? I know we are not producing MM3 rocket moters (I think) and the Russians are. Although we do have some recent experience producing Trident 2 missiles, the Russians seem to have a much more active iCBM industrial production base. And how many MM missiles do we have left? (other than the 450, soon to be 420 in the silos) We seem to be test firing them a lot.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
stew3 said:
bobbymike said:
Russia to Boost Ballistic Missile Manufacturing, Putin Says
Thursday, April 21, 2011

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Wednesday asserted that beginning in 2013 the nation would double the number of ballistic missiles it manufactures, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, April 12). "The armed forces will receive new strategic and tactical missile systems, such as RS-24 Yars, Bulava and Iskander M," Putin said in his yearly speech to Russian lawmakers. In March, Putin said Moscow would spend $2.6 billion on the manufacturing of ballistic missiles in accordance with an armed forces update plan. Missile producers, including a factory in Votkinsk, in the coming three years are to receive $500 million to bolster their manufacturing capabilities, Putin said. "The financing will gradually increase in the future," he said (RIA Novosti, April 20).
How does this compare with Obama's promise (we will see) to spend several billion on updating our nuclear weapons complex? I know we are not producing MM3 rocket moters (I think) and the Russians are. Although we do have some recent experience producing Trident 2 missiles, the Russians seem to have a much more active iCBM industrial production base. And how many MM missiles do we have left? (other than the 450, soon to be 420 in the silos) We seem to be test firing them a lot.
Money for the weapons complex is strictly for nuclear weapons, warhead refurbishment, RV's, etc nothing for delivery systems. Russia has a far more robust modernization program for delivery systems. The US "forgot" to include $6 million this year for a MMIII replacement study so I don't know how serious they are towards Triad modernization. There is also preliminary work on a Trident replacement the SSBN(X) and missile but we won't see the former until 2030 and the later to 2037 I believe. A MMIII replacement is scheduled for 2030 as well but with 20 years of projected large federal deficits between now and then we will wait to see if anything get built.

Check out the Future US ICBM's and SLBM's thread great information there. http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6632.0.html
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
Russian Missile Test Said to Involve New Weapon
Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Russia's submarine-launched missile test on Friday did not involve a Sineva system as was officially stated but rather a new "Liner" ICBM, Russia Today reported (see GSN, May 23). The Russian Miass Missile Center on Tuesday revealed that the successful test actually involved a new ICBM variant that had been developed in secret. The missile could be a significantly advanced version of the Sineva, which entered into service four years ago, Russia Today reported (Russia Today, May 25). Meanwhile, the first of Russia's fourth-generation Borei-class submarines has been put into water for final sea testing, Sevmash shipyard spokeswoman Anastasia Nikitinskaya said to ITAR-Tass (see GSN, April 20).

Work on the nuclear-powered Yuri Dolgoruky began in 1996. Shipyard testing of the vessel began in 2007 and ended in 2010. The submarine is to field the experimental Bulava missile, with an initial test launch from the vessel slated to take place in 2011. Russia intends to construct a minimum of eight Borei-class submarines, which would form the backbone of the country's revamped sea-based nuclear deterrent (ITAR-Tass, May 24). Separately, Russian RS-24 ICBMs are to be fielded this year with a unit at a military installation in the Ivanovo region, Interfax reported on Tuesday (see GSN, May 18). "The rearmament of the RS-24 ICBM fitted with a MIRV (multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle) warhead boosts the [Russian strategic missile troops] attack force's combat capability to counter missile defense systems, thus strengthening the nuclear deterrent potential of the Russian strategic nuclear forces," RSVN spokesman Col. Vadim Koval said (Interfax, May 24)
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
821
Reaction score
18
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
Trident said:
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.
 

stew3

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
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.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,949
Reaction score
289
stew3 said:
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
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?
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,991
Reaction score
194
bobbymike said:
---------------------------------------------------------------
With only "supposedly" 1550 warheads allowed under New Start, the purpose of this missile is?
A very good question indeed.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,949
Reaction score
289
Good thing we got that shiny new treaty. ::)
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
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"
 

Sea Skimmer

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
394
Reaction score
11
bobbymike said:
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
Sea Skimmer said:
bobbymike said:
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.
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
1
bobbymike said:
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

bobbymike said:
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.
 
Top