There were reports that Russia tested some kind of manoeurvalbe hipersonic warheads on its Topol/Topol-M missiles during February 2004 military exercises and beyond.
Will this warhead be deployed soon on Russian new missiles "en masse" or it is only propagandist move prepared by Russian government for internal purposes ?
For clean technical point of view this design is attractive and probably very effective against American NMD for many years to come. But what about military spending on it ???

It is a "propagandist move for internal purposes". Whatever it was that was tested, its practical siginificance is probably zero. Russia doesn't really need anything in addition to what it already has to counter the U.S. missile defense. I would seriously doubt that this "hypersonic warhead" can be deployed in any significant numbers.

I have also read at your website that Russia will deploy quite small number of mobile and silo based SS-27 Topol-M missiles in coming years. So maybe there will be MIRV-ed versions? Additionally SORT treaty reduces overall number of Russian strategic warheads to ~1500 by 2012. Could you tell me in brief, what will be composition of your triad in 2012 (ICBMs, SSBNs and bombers' types and their numbers) because I feel it will be very modest quantity of delivery systems.

And yet another matter. I saw in your news from October 20, 2004 that remain SS-24 missiles will be withdrawn from active duty in 2005. It is very bad in my opinion because this missiles are very effective weapon: newer than SS-18, more accurate and mobile! This makes it a perfect reserve, second strike weapon! I know this missiles were built on Ukraine but have similar design to the SS-N-20 SLBM and supposedly their production line was transferred to Russia before desintegration of the USSR. So, why Russia doesn't resume production of SS-24 just now? Probably SS-24 is more costly than SS-27 but has much lagrer strike potential and comparable survivability!
And yet another vagueness: Russia actually withdraws many strategic delivery systems. But why US don't do the same? Through US weapon systems are also so old as Russian ones. In contrary US extended their service lives to the unbelievable timeframes: Minuteman III (also solid propellant like SS-24) - 45 years, SSBN Ohio/Trident II (coeval of Typhoons) - 50 years and B-52 (much older than Tu-95MS) - 80 years (last period seems fantastic to me...) !

MIRVing Topol-M is prohibited by the START Treaty - the missile was declared as a modification of Topol, and the treaty prohibits increasing the number of warheads on an existing missile. So, MIRVing is not an option until 2009, when START expires. After that, it would be possible, but, I belive, not practical.

As for SS-24, its first stage was produced in Ukraine. It seems that Russia managed to transfer that production to its own territory - the same first stage was used in the Bark SLBM. But the Bark program was cancelled, so the future of this capability is not clear.

A brief overview of the developments in the Russian strategic forces in my recent article or in an older one.

As for the question about U.S. systems, most of them are not as old as the Russian ones and all go through a fairly expensive overhaul (for example, extending service life of Minutemans includes replacing fuel in their rocket motors). Russia is doing what it can, but it certainly cannot match the resources of the United States.

John,

About the "hypersonic warheads" if they were testet the US would be the first to know about it. If the were not tested even if they exist they cannot be deployed "en masse"

In any case if they exist which is possible, their status would be negotiated as agreed in the SALT threaty. They could be used as a bargaining chip by Moscow...

To Mr. Podvig: I don't think that SS-27 was mentioned in START I treaty because it didn't exist in 1991. If you think about START II, it doesn't matter because this treaty was cancelled by Russia in 2002. Maybe you mistaken START with SALT II. In SALT really was declaration that SS-25 Sickle is succesor but older SS-13 Savage missile (famous 5% upgrade ban).

To Mr. Pindikov: Let's explain one important thing: What treaties are in force today ??? I know that:

1. SALT I - signed in 1972 and was finished in 1977.
2. SALT II - signed in 1979 never came into force because US Senat didn't ratify it.
3. START I signed in 1991 formally is in force untill 2009.
4. START II sined in 1993 was abandonned by Russia in 2002 after US withdraval form ABM treaty.
5. SORT treaty sifgned in 2002 is in force untill 2012.

So, currently are obligatory START I and SORT, but case of "hipersonic warhead" is not mentioned in them. Therefore I cannot see reasons, why Russia have to co-ordinate with US this case at all.

To John: SS-27 was in the START I Treaty - the missile was in development at that time as a joint effort of Uzhmash in Ukraine and MITT in Moscow. After the breakup of the Soviet Union it was transferred to MITT, so development took longer that usual. But it's a relatively old program.

Your informations are not optimistic. Seems that Russia has all ways to preserve its nuclear arsenal closed. Nothing can produce or overhaul. I suggest simply abandon START I treaty like START II and next build such forces to 2012:

1. ICBM: 380 missiles, 1880 warheads:
SS-18 50 - 500 warheads
SS-19 130 - 780 warheads
SS-27 200 - 600 warheads (each with 3xMIRV)

2. SLBM: 10 SSBN, 160 missiles, 1396 warheads
Delta IV 7 - 112 Sineva missiles, 1120 warheads (each with 10XMIRV)
Borei 3 - 48 Bulava missiles, 276 warheads (each with 6xMIRV)
Typhoon ? - ??, ???

3. Bombers: 80 aircrafts, 720 ALCMs
Tu-95 MS 60 - 480 ALCM H-101 (8 per aircraft)
Tu-160 M 20 - 240 ALCM H-101 (12 per aircraft)

TOTAL: 620 delivery vehicles equipped with 3996 warheads.

This allows preserve actual amount of warheads but on fewer number of delivery systems which would be less costly. Moreover such move doesn't require huge purchases of new systems: 3 SSBN, 700 ALCM and
150 ICBMs in 7 years! Key move is retaining old delivery systems (RS-20V and new 100 RS-18 purchased from Ukraine in 2003) and incerase MIRV-ing.

To John,

"So, currently are obligatory START I and SORT, but case of "hipersonic warhead" is not mentioned in them. Therefore I cannot see reasons, why Russia have to co-ordinate with US this case at all."

Because the precedents you named are still in force and if Russia does not cooperate it is puting in geopardity all that is agreed. These treaties are worth nothing if they are not uphold with good faith from the signatories.

Russia has to cooperate because as a mobile system the SS-27 is under all the regulations for mobile ICBMs and ICBMs in general. I am posting some of the most relevant but you could read again the threaties you mentioned about and develop them further:

SALT:

Article IV
Subject to the provisions of this Interim Agreement, modernization and replacement of strategic offensive ballistic missiles and launchers covered by this Interim Agreement may be undertaken.

Article VI
To promote the objectives and implementation of the provisions of this Interim Agreement, the Parties shall use the Standing Consultative Commission established under Article XIII of theTreaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems in accordance with the provisions of that Article.

Article VII
The Parties undertake to continue active negotiations for limitations on strategic offensive arms.The obligations provided for in this Interim Agreement shall not prejudice the scope or terms ofthe limitations on strategic offensive arms which may be worked out in the course of further negotiations.

START II

I. Determination and Accountability of ICBM and SLBM Throw-weight

1. The throw-weight demonstrated in a flight test of an ICBM or SLBM shall be:

(a) for an ICBM or SLBM the final stage of which executes a procedure for dispensing reentry vehicles, the aggregate weight of that stage including its propellant and elements not separated from the stage, at the time at which the first release of a reentry vehicle or penetration aid occurs, and its payload;

(b) for an ICBM or SLBM that is not an ICBM or SLBM the final stage of which executes a procedure for dispensing reentry vehicles, the weight of the payload of the final stage or final stages.

2. For each ICBM or SLBM of an existing type, the accountable throw-weight shall be the greatest throw-weight demonstrated in flight tests of an ICBM or SLBM of that type.

3. For each ICBM or SLBM of a new type, the accountable throw-weight shall be the greatest throw-weight demonstrated in flight tests of an ICBM or SLBM of that type, which shall be determined subject to the following provisions:

(a) The greatest throw-weight demonstrated in flight tests of an ICBM or SLBM of a new type shall be no less than the maximum calculated throw-weight that an ICBM or SLBM of that type could deliver to a distance of 11,000 kilometers for ICBMs, or to a distance of 9500 kilometers for SLBMs.

(b) None of the first seven flight tests shall be taken into account in determining the greatest throw-weight demonstrated in flight tests of an ICBM or SLBM of a new type unless the throw-weight demonstrated in such a flight test exceeds the greatest throw-weight demonstrated in subsequent flight tests by more than 20 percent or 250 kilograms, whichever is less, prior to an ICBM or SLBM of that type becoming subject to the limitations provided for in Article II of the Treaty.

And here the SS-27 IS MENTIONED:
Second Agreed Statement. The Parties agree that, in the event of the emergence in the future of a new kind of arm that one Party considers could be a new kind of strategic offensive arm, that Party shall have the right to raise the question of such an arm for consideration by the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission in accordance with subparagraph (c) of Article XV of the Treaty

Mr Pindikov:
I am afraid that you have just returned from a long journey, man. You citied me SALT and START II treaties. But all of them are now out of date what I clearly expressed in my previous post! Simply these treaties are garbages and therefore it doesn't matter what they included.

And another thing: You mentioned above: "Russia has to cooperate because...bla,bla,blab". Namely, Russia HAS NOT COOPERATE NOW because US evicted to the trashcan ABM treaty without any reasons! Moreover US is now reflecting whether to abandon other treaties!

Recapitulation: I am very surprised! I am Westerner and I got into Russian website. But I still read here support to the US point of view expressed by Russians. So who is to represent Russian rations? Me ???Did you and all your colleagues here become US sidekicks?
Maybe all this website is some kind of US sponsored enterprise designed to turn Russnians brains ???
Get sober !!!
Farewell !

Dear John,

Apperantly there was a reason for these thereaties ant this is the Russian millitary might which is still here. I am not quite willing to beleive that an american is willing to see 700,000 Iranian army advancing in Iraq and 8,000,000,000 korean pricks invading ROK backed up by air deffence manned by Russian personel.

I recognize that you are right on the thereaties, but I expect an appoligy form you because I am not Russiam (I am a citizen of the EU (lets say like that because you prohbably do not know all of the US states, let alone all the European countries) and my country is in NATO! NATO with 16,000 russian tanks on the border and highly nationalistic Russian minaroties behind it. Nuclear Yuhgoslavia, get the picture?

Recapitulation: Ignorance is strenght. However people like you should not expect me to fight Russia for the US ON THESE TERMS! Two world wars in Europe are enough and the WW3 would not be here I guarantee.

Farewell to you too and respect you allies because you may need them.