The production rate of Topol-M missiles has slowed down somewhat in the last few years - only four missiles were deployed in 2004 and two - in 2005. The plan for 2006 calls for deployment of six or seven missiles, three of which will be mobile. According to General Alexei Moskovskiy, the chief of the armament of the Russian armed forces, the state acquisition program approved an increase of this rate in the coming years. Moskovskiy did not mention any specific numbers, but I would not expect a dramatic change. I would guess that we could expect about nine missiles deployed annually, but we will have to wait and see.
Interestingly enough, when Moskovskiy was asked about the plans to build a new liquid-fuel missile he was non-committal and did not reject this possibility, saying that "everything that advances effectiveness of the strategic forces is being developed and will be developed". It appears that while Topol-M is gaining the upper hand, the debate about new missiles is not yet over. If only the oil prices would stay high.
The book
Comments
Why was there a slow down in 2005 from 2004?
Aviation Week & Space Technology in its June 12th issue stated Vice Premier/Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov has approved the draft of a military procurement program for 2007-15 calling for 50 Topol-M ICBMs and a total of five Project 955 submarines armed with Bulava strategic missiles. This proposal goes to President Putin later this month for final approval. Given an accurate report, I guess this would work out to around seven Topol-M missiles per year as the way I read the article this represents a seven-year defense plan.
Frank Shuler
USA
Moskovskiy response to the new missile seems to be very diplomatic , But reading between the lines the answer seems yes.
This year, 3 mobile + 4 silo-based Topol-m will be deployed. Next year 9 more. It's seems that the deployment rate is normalizing. 6 mobile + 4 silo per year seems to be the stationary objective. This plus 12 Bulava every 2 years seems more cost efficient.
MIRVing some in deployment Topol should also be an effective option. May be after 2009.
Moskovskiy talked about a possible increase over the 6-7 missiles a year rate, which is in the current procurement program. On the other hand, he seemed to imply that this may happen after the program is completed. So, I wouldn't expect nine Topol-Ms in 2007 or a few years after that.
Are the Russians capable of building nine Topol-Ms per year? The production rate might have a lot more to do with available funding than keeping to a strict timetable.
The cost-efficient production rate is assumed to be 20-30/year. So the current pace have to do with insufficient available funding rather than with timetables or efficient scale-based production.
Refresh my memory, what is a Tula ballistic missile? I know the Tula Design Bureau and I think there is a Sierra-class submarine name "Tula". But I drew a blank on a ballistic missile so named. Thanks.
Frank Shuler
USA
I know this is place to go for SSBN's and not SSN's but the Nerpa (Akula 1) hit the water today, is there any reason to believe the ship is meant for the RuFN or can we assume its going to go to India?
It was Tula submarine, not Tula ballistic missile. As for the Project 971 Nerpa submarine, it looks like it will be leased to India.
Bad information posted by Reuters this morning. Thanks for the clarification.
Frank Shuler
USA
Satish Chandra:
Curious about your comments regarding the range of Russian vs. Soviet ICBMs. Is it your contention that, say, the SS-27 Topol M has a 2000-mile less range that the SS-19 (silo) or SS-25 (mobile) missile it replaces? If so, given the fact the Topol M has less range than the missiles it replaces, yet holds the same targets at risk, where is the "inferiority"?
Frank Shuler
USA
The Range of Topol-M is 10,500 km with a throw up weight if 1,2 tons , The Range of Topol is 10,500 km with a throwup weight of 1 ton , The range of SS-19 is 10,000 km with 4.3 tons.
So where is the question of Topol-M being inferior in range ?
Topol-m is also specified with a throw weight if 1,3 ton for a 10.100 km range. But this match almost exactly wit the 1.2 ton-10.500 km figure on a ballistic path.
May be the 2.000 km less correspond to the Bulava, that supposedly have a 1.2 tn throw weight for a 8.300 km range.
I have a question: Which ICBM has the longest range at this moment?
If I remember correctly, one version of R-36M2/SS-18 has a range of about 16,000 km.
Thanks Pavel. I understand from your website that some defense experts are talking about building a liquid fuel missile similar to SS-18. Is Russia has any plan or ability to build a much longer range ICBM in recent future? As I know the range of the US Minuteman III ICBM is 13,000 km and these missiles would be in active service upto 2020. Do you think Topol-M with a maximum range of 10,500 km can better serve Russian strategic forces?
I'm not sure that a range of an ICBM matters all that much. Why would it?
As for the "new missile", the discussion is about a SS-19/UR-100NUTTH follow-on, not SS-18.
As I know Bulava is developing as SLBM for new Borey-class nuclear submarines but some people are now talking about land based Bulava ICBM! Is it true?
It seems to be theoritically possible to deploy Bulava in a silo, but I would serously doubt it will happen. It was one of the "selling points" for the Bulava project, but this timme has long gone.