The dispute in the missile industry about the future of the Russian strategic forces has been simmering for a while. As I wrote in April, Yuri Solomonov, the chief designer of the Topol-M and Bulava missiles, was clearly nervous about long-term prospects of his programs. Hence all these press-conferences and constant praises to Topol-M and Bulava as "unique missiles that would penetrate all possible missile defenses."
The reason for that nervousness wasa fairly easy to guess, but now we know it. It's competition. Last week, Gerbert Yefremov, the director and chief designer of NPO Mashinostroyeniya (the Chelomey design bureau, which developed the UR-100NUTTH missiles as well as a number of space launchers and other systems), went public with his criticism of the plan to move to solid-propellant ballistic missiles, advocated by Solomonov.
Yefremov argues that the Soviet and Russian industry is traditionally good with liquid-fuel missiles and there is no reason to abandon this strength. He says that Russia should slow down the process of replacing silo-based R-36M2/SS-18 missiles with mobile Topol-Ms. The SS-18 hardened silos should be kept, Yefremov argues, to be used for deployment of a new 100-tonnes class liquid-fuel ICBM, which his design bureau will develop by 2015-2016. Judging by the launch weight, the new missile would look very much like the UR-100NUTTH/SS-19 (which has the launch weight of about 105 tonnes).
Iit is interesting to note that most of what Yefremov is lobbying for is being done anyway. For example, the R-36M2/SS-18 missiles are unlikely to be retired before 2015. The Rocket Forces are keeping at least some of the silos. In addition to that, Yefremov is careful not to deny the value of mobile missiles. So, it is the development money that he is after. But aren't they all?
The book
Comments
So the new 100 Tons Missile is a replacement to the SS-19/18 , Which will mean that in the Future too Russia sees a role for Silo Based Heavy ICBM and dosent want to loose that capability .
So post ~ 2015 Russia Land Based Force could see the following ICBM's deployed
Topol-M ( Mobile/Single Warhead )
Bulava Universal Missile( Mobile/Silo 6 Warhead )
New Heavy ICBM's ( Silo/ 8 ~ 10 warheads )
Based on previous news it seems no amount of Grumbling by Yuri Solomonov will change the decision to opt for solid fuel Heavy ICBM , instead of Liquid Fuel Ones as the decision has been made by highest political authority.
For one Cost-Effectiveness is an important factor for any Military Procurement , And Liquid Fuel Missile will be considerably Cheaper to Build compared to Solid Ones
I think it is too early to say that NPOMash will succeed with its new liquid-fuel ICBM.
Looks like its competition for SS-19/24 silos as well. I thought the SS-18 silos were too financially cumbersome to be rebuilt for SS-27 or a liquid-fueled, 100 ton SS-19 replacement? New silos?
Frank Shuler
USA
Hi Pavel, why do you doubt if they will suceed , Its not the first time they are developing a Liquid Fuel ICBM
Now, time to deploy mobile Bulava with 10 warheads and intermediate ranges and deploy them in sites used a few years ago by Pioneers. They will ruin any shield "against the axis of evil".
Kolokol, why are you against a "shield" that serves only to protect a country? Today, Russia is the only nation on this planet that has an operational ballistic missile defense system. The ABM system surrounding Moscow only serves to protect its citizens. The United States has never complained about such a system, even though the Russian "shield" uses nuclear warheads in its interceptors. Just curious as to your opinions.
I bet the land based, multiple-warhead Bulava missile is never deployed. The cost is too much in relation to Topol-M and the politics are too much within the "liquid-fueled design bureaus". Just my opinion.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank , Mate the Moscow based ABM system is of a very limited nature defending areas in and around Moscow and not the whole of Russia.
Many say it has become obsolete and or is non functional.
The US system though at the moment is limited but comprehensive in Nature and covers SRBM,IRBM and ICBM and range of systems covering Air Borne Laser,Ground Based Intercept ,BPI and even Ship Based SM-2/3 systems.
The Ground Based Bulava is almost has nothing to do with the Liquid Fuel Heavy ICBM , The Ground based Bulava will be deployed in due course of time.
The Politics is that MITT wants to develop a Solid Fuel ICBM in competition with NPOMash which is alread developing a Liquid Fuel ICBM
This topic reminds me of the reports from December 2003 (reported by both CNN and the Russian press) that Russia was going to develop a new "heavy" ICBM:
http://www.atomicarchive.com/weblog/2003_12_01_archive.shtml
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/22/russia.missiles.ap/
Could this be public argument about whether the new "heavy" will be liquid or solid-fuelled?
Of course, given the 4.4ton payload reported, it looks close to the RS-22, and as I recall, the RS-22 was to replace the RS-18.
Its always good to have Solid Fuel compared to Liquid Ones , But its not cost effective solution ( Liquid Missile are consideribly cheaper to built ) , As I have mentioned before Liquid Fuel has its own advantage.
Plus It not a good idea that only one Design bureau design all the missiles for you , It creates a single entity, becomes all too powerful and new ideas or solution is not easy to come by.
Russia is already profecient in developing both Solid & Liquid Fuel Missile ( specially the liquid for many years) , its always good to build upon the experience and move ahead.
The Russian Government has made a decision to design the new Liquid Fuel Heavy ICBM under NPOMash , Unless ofcourse they fail it will likely remain so.
Can any one give me some figures for the Yeald to Weight Ratio of Russia's ThermoNuclear Weapons and the Types too if possible ??
Austin, nevertheless the Moscow ABM system by treaty is deemed operational. In practical terms, I suspect the value of the system is nil. I doubt there is a single Russian General that would stake his career on its success. The United States has been spending $10 billion dollars a year for 20 years developing effective ballistic missile defense systems. In that time, and for that investment, the United States has only delivered one operational defense system, the PACIII Patriot. This surface-to-air missile system has intercepted SCUD missiles in combat. The ABL laser project shows great promise against SCUD missiles in boost phase and has potential in the cruise missile arena as well. It is a project beset by technical delays and massive cost overruns. The ABM "system" today protecting America is six missiles in silos in Alaska and a farther four missiles in California to be used in desperation if the missiles in Alaska fail to hit their targets. Installation of the X-Band radar needed to cue such a systems isn't complete. The orbital satellites needed to detect and command such an anti-missile defense don't exist today. Their development is 10 years late and astronomically over budget. The whole idea of national ballistic missile defense is still a huge research & development project, no more.
I bet Russia will not deploy both a land based, multi-warhead Bulava and a liquid fueled "heavy" missile. Too much money; too much Russian politics. In fact, I have my doubts that Russia will replace the existing SS-18/19 systems with a future multi-warhead missile at all. (The same for the American Minuteman III replacement) Topol-M is the present and the future for Russia. Just my thoughts.
Frank Shuler
USA
Multi-warhead land based Bulava should be cheaper than design, develop and test a new heavy ICBM. Bulava had been designed and tested twice from SSBM. It's easier to adapt a SLBM to land than the inverse work (this in fact have been done by creating the Bulava from the Topol-m). Development and deployment of land-based Bulava is more or less straightforward. Furthermore is well suited to target threatening near abroad spots with lots of conventional or nuclear warheads (from IR to IC ranges).
PD: It could be deployed in Cuba as a shield against Al-Qaeda and Chechens too.
Kolokol, if installing multi-warhead land based Bulava missiles in Cuba would rid the world of Al-Qaeda and radical Chechen extremist and the reason those organizations exist, I'm all in favor. Changing world, isn't it?
Frank Shuler
USA
Russia should go with two ICBM types: Topol-m and a new liquid fuel heavy. I think 300 Toplol-m and 50 of the heavy liquid fuel ICBM. (Bulava's ballistic performance and survivability is not as good as the Topol-m)
The new heavy ICBM should be storable liquid, primarily because storable liguid fuel will always be superior to solid in terms of range and payload because of it's higher specific impulse (efficiency). I believe , however, that the new heavy ICBM should be fitted with a single large maneuverable RV of around 50 megatons clean (95%+ fusion). technology demonstrated in operation Dominic in 1962 showed the possibility of developing a "clean" device of that size with a weight of only around 4 tonnes. I believe this type of warhead is a much more viable, credible, and fearsome deterrent than 10 550 KT "dirty" RV's, as their use would cause fallout to the extent that it would be nearly as bad for the country launching the weapons as for the recipient. Remember,the current generation of warheads for both the US and Russia were designed to be used as mirved weapons (pre START II) when packaging was the primary concern, and besides being extremely "dirty", they are also extremely innefficient in comparison to true thermonuclear devices of earlier generations. (they are essentially boosted fission devices).
What makes you say that Bulava's ballistic performance and survivability is not as good as the Topol-M ??
Austin:
It stands to reason that given the Bulava specifications posted earlier on this site (similar range and throw-weight to Topol-M but smaller mass and size) that the Bulava will not be able to come anywhere close to matching the Topol M's vaunted acceleration and ultra-short boost phase capabilities.
Rather than spend lots of money designing, developing and testing a new 100-ton class ICBM, Russia may deploy a land-based version of Sineva. It has been tested, it's light but with a ten-warhead capability. If payload is 2.8 tn for the SLBM, with a 10.000 km range it would have a near 2 ton throw weight.
According to globalsecurity.org it has been suggested that some of these liquid-fuel missiles could be deployed on land in the absence of the START agreements. This seems as a very effective and cheap option to reach the 2000+ warheads level.
Furthermore, it will give work to Makeev & Mashinostroyeniya while retaining liquid-fuel manufacturing capability. Now everything is going to MIT.