Strategic Rocket Forces conducted a successful test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile, which was declared a missile of a new type, designated RS-24. The launch was conducted at 14:20 MSK from the Plesetsk test site toward the Kura test site in Kamchatka. The missile was launched from a mobile launcher and carried multiple independently targeted warheads.
The missile appears to be a version of the Topol-M missile modified to ensure compliance with the START Treaty. The treaty prohibits increasing the number of warheads on missiles of existing types. No details of the modification are available at the moment.
UPDATE: The grainy TV footage of the launch indicates that the missile indeed looks very much like Topol-M. It is, in fact, possible that the only thing that distinguish RS-24 and Topol-M is the designation. And, of course, the fact that the "new" missile carries multiple warheads. Topol-M appears to be capable of carrying MIRVs without any modifications. The name change may be a cosmetic measure that allows to avoid a direct conflict with the letter of the START Treaty. Of course, other explanations may emerge when (and if) more information is released, but I wouldn't be surprised if RS-24 is indeed a MIRVed but not otherwise modified Topol-M.
The book
Comments
Media reports indicate that they used the designation "RS-24" and that the missile can carry 10 warheads- is that plausible for a Topol-M modification?
Alternately, could this be the so-called 'Land Bulava'?
Doz: Whether or not this missile is a modification of Topol-M it has to be declared as a new missile to be in compliance with START.
Vincent: No details have been released so far, but it may be possible that the missile uses, say, Bulava's first stage. A completely new first stage is also possible. I'd wait till we know more.
It would be interesting to learn more details about it. I understand that it will take years to deploy it, but the fact that there is so little information about it is strange, it is not so easy to develop even a modified missile. I would also wonder what is a successful launch, did they test the warheads or not?
Well, there is something sure: there will be MIRVed ICBM in the strategic arsenal.
Well Aleksandr, the media reports qoute the spokesman as saying the 'warheads' (plural) hit the target area.
RIA Novosti had a article posted on May 9th where Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov
Stated the SS-27 Topol-M installations would cease in 2010. He said the forces will complete the deployment of silo-based Topol-M systems in the Saratov Region in southern Russia and mobile systems in the Ivanovo Region in central Russia by 2010. Solovtsov also said that new kinds of equipment were being developed for mobile systems and that at least 12 test-launches would be conducted from several different ballistic systems in 2007.
[quotes paraphrased]
Perhaps this new system is a post-2010 compliment for the Topol-M?
Frank Shuler
USA
Hi gentleman!
Can't imagine that the Pentagon wasn't aware of that development/modification. Frank, - or someone else - do they have a "western designation SS..." for that missile, already?
Best Regards from bernd reuter
Pavel, I have a serious problem with your blog.
Some messages (with technical info and interesting links), - simply disappear after the message '... by blog owner'.
But some messages going DIRECTLY to the blog, without any consideration of the 'blog owner'... (???)
Soft malfunction?
The news seem puzzling. There were reports about MIRVing Topol-M, which is legally possible after 2009. RS-24 cannot be MIRVed Topol-M, however: it has to be a new type (START I prohibits increasing the number of warheads on existing types) and if I remember the text of START I correctly, it is impossible to declare MIRVed Topol-M a new type because the new type has to be different by a number of other parameters, including dimensions, for example. That is, you really have to design a new missile. But there have been no indications so far that I know about R&D on a brand new missile. Yes, maybe Bulava - that's the only feasible option I can see at the moment. Perhaps it flies from land better than it does from sea.
Frank Shuler: Solovtsov's statement referred to these two divisions only. The officially announced current plans for Topol-M deployment extend to 2015 (see http://wmdinsights.com/I12/I12_R3_RussianStrategicForces.htm ). After 2010 Topol-M will be deployed at other divisions.
Also, a new 'cruise missile with variative payload', named in media R-500, was tested today.
The missile was intended for placing on Iskander-M platform, and, probably, uses the slightly modified Iskander's first stage as a 'quasi-ballistic' booster with a 'cruise-missile-like' payload.
Here the news (In Russian):
http://top.rbc.ru/society/29/05/2007/104599.shtml
http://news.mail.ru/politics/1342647/
http://news.mail.ru/politics/1343697/
- What does it mean???
- Well, it's another answer, - and good answer, - on US EuroABM initiative.
- The maximal range for 'Iskander-M' with original (conventional) payload, - is somewhere between 400 and 500 km;
- First, new 'variative' (variable, (c) Sergey Ivanov) payload, it seems, will include also nuclear warheads with significant less weight, in comparision with 'conventional' Iskander's payload... So, these 'nuked' Iskanders, should have increased, in comparision with 'Iskander Orj', range (smaller payload - greater range; all is simple, - compare 'SCUD' with 'Al-Hussein').
- Second, the 'modified cruise-quasiballistic' 'Iskander-M', should, also, take a benefit of increased range, due to the 'new type of payload' (cruise missiles have a significant greater range, because it much more 'fuel-effective', in comparision with ballistic and semi-ballistic missiles).
- Why Russia will need this systems? Answer is simple: 'Iskander-M' with quasi-ballistic booster (first stage), and a cruise payload with a nuclear warhead, will be needed to strike the EuroABM RADARs, placed around the Russia's territory... The full scenario of the hypotetic 'US disarming first strike', will be placed on the blog later...
- It seems we need to forget a 'land-based Bulava', i.e. 'new, Pioneer-like IRBM'. There's no need in any IRBMs, when all their job, 'Iskander', armed with new 'cruise-quasiballistic missile', can done.
Again, the new link:
http://top.rbc.ru/society/29/05/2007/104568.shtml
- The new, MIRVed, RS-24 called in this link 'a successor of outdated SS-18 Satan...'
Bernd Reuter:
I suspect any “western designation” for the new ICBM will come from Brussels. NATO usually takes the lead on new weapon monikers and the such. I haven’t heard any Pentagon rumbling of a new Russian ICBM but I suspect the staff there is “in the know”. There doesn’t seem to be any real surprises anymore between Russian and the United States; at least in regards to major weapon systems.
Frank Shuler
USA
Russian:
"Land-based Bulava" is not "new Pioneer-like IRBM". Bulava is a strategic SLBM, which so far has refused to fly from subs. My hypothesis - and this is only a hypothesis - is that they launched Bulava from land, which would have required few modifications. It can also be classified as a "variant" of Bulava, which is legally possible.
Can you explain the "cruise-quasiballistic" point? Legally, ballistic and cruise are different, although, of course, once you get to maneuverable ballistic the difference could become murky. The news, however, seemed to state quite clearly that this was a launch of a short-range cruise missile (i.e., less than 500 km) as per the INF Treaty. Ballistic Iskander also can have the range of less than 500 km, and back in late 1990s, I vaguely remember, I saw its range put at around 400-450. The 280 km version was dubbed early in this decade Iskander-E (export) to be under MTCR limits. Whether range could be increased to beyond 500 km is an interesting question and I do not have the answer. It would, however, sit well with the intention to withdraw from the INF.
N. Sokov:
Thanks for the update on Solovtsov’s comments.
What puzzles me is, with the mobile Topol-M finally in production, why would you develop a new road mobile system? Just when the SS-27 should be in series production to replace the old SS-25s in numbers, the Topol-M will have to share the budget with another missile system. I’m not too clear on the logic here. If this was a competing Design Bureau, the politics of that decision I would understand. Any thoughts?
Frank Shuler
From the Associated Press:
[paraphrasing is mine]
First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said the new missile was a “new version” of the Topol-M, first known as the SS-27 in the West, but one that that can carry multiple independent warheads, ITAR-Tass reported.
Sounds like this ICBM is only the multiple warhead version of the SS-27 Topol-M missile we’ve been expecting.
Frank Shuler
USA
> What puzzles me is, with the mobile Topol-M finally in production, why would you develop a new road mobile system? Any thoughts?
- A thought: 'Topol-M' is rather ineffective in the new, vital for Russian nuclear deterrence, task, - to neutralize the US ABM STATIONARY RADARS, placed in the neighbours (up to 1000 km) of Russian borders (presently Norway, probably Czechia, maybe Georgia, and any place around the Russian borders).
- It seems that 'Topol-M' is mainly 'a classic', i.e. intended for a long-distance run, ICBM.
- It seems that the new 'RS-24', seems to be a 'STATIONARY RADAR / ABM INSTALLATIONS SUPRESSOR', - just like IRBM...
- So:
a) formally RS-24 is ICBM (but a rather short-range ICBM - maybe with 'near 8000 km' range).
b) really, it's a 'Pioneer-replace' (i.e., it's an IRBM 'in task and spirit').
Dear Mr. Podvig,
My sources tell me that this is just the RS-12M3 (a MIRV modification of the RS-12M1). It is apparently noticeably heavier and has a slightly different propellant. It has been redesignated the RS-24 to avoid START restrictions. This in effect constitutes the RS-12/RS-12M trick in reverse, whereby a modification of an existing missile is portrayed as a new missile, while the opposite was the case in the 1980s. It is 'tricks' like these that lead me to conclude that Russia and the West cannot be partners.
Russian:
[… It seems that the new 'RS-24', seems to be a 'STATIONARY RADAR / ABM INSTALLATIONS SUPRESSOR', - just like IRBM...]
If this is the case, you’ll only need one. (smile)
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank Shuler:
Beats me. Russian strategic posture policy has seemed suboptimal since 2000. The rate of deployment of Topol-M (one regiment in two and a half years) does not make sense - production should be at least double, if not triple, to make it cost-effective.
According to news, RS-24 was designed by MITT, which, production-wise, means Votkinsk. This is one of the reasons I said this could be land-based Bulava: it's already in small-scale production (for tests). Also, Solomonov could now say: see, our SLBM is late, but we got an ICBM ahead of time (he did promise a dual-basing missile, after all).
And I'd love to see RS designations scrapped. This is a heritage from SALT II, does not really make much sense.
> Sounds like this ICBM is only the multiple warhead version of the SS-27 Topol-M missile we’ve been expecting.
- So, the main questions are:
a) Is 'RS-24' derived from 50-tonn 'Topol-M', - then it's just a MIRVed 'Topol-M';
b) Is 'RS-24' derived from 30-tonn 'Bulava', - then it's a new 'IRBM / ICBM' class weapon.
- If (a), - it's a puzzle, how they can make a new missile, in compliance with START???
- They just increase missile weight & dimensions? By so many percents? And how many MORE tonns, SS-27 transporter able to carry???
- If (b) - they can take the 30-tonn 'Bulava' as a basis, regarding to the missile weight, dimensions and throw weight, and it would be really a 'new missile' (according to START).
> [… It seems that the new 'RS-24', seems to be a 'STATIONARY RADAR / ABM INSTALLATIONS SUPRESSOR', - just like IRBM...]
If this is the case, you’ll only need one. (smile)
- Why one? Ten! :-)
Karl Schenzig:
If it is heavier, then the question is how much - it has to be 10 percent more than Topol-M (definition of new type). It could also go by dimensions - if the difference is three percent (five necessary for new type), it can be declared a variant. But then virtually any ICBM or SLBM can be legally declared a variant (that is, even with less than 3 percent difference) - 25th agreed statement.
The catch is, even if it's a version, it's still the same type, right?
A counter-catch: until 20 tests it's prototype and is not accountable.
So, it is something like a Topol-M on steroids, Right?
> My sources tell me that this is just the RS-12M3 (a MIRV modification of the RS-12M1). It has been redesignated the RS-24 to avoid START restrictions.
Karl Schenzig:
- You are right, - all Russian missiles are 'redesigned' R-1 SCUD... :-) Of course, all these 'redesigns' have one goal - to avoid the restrictions of international treaties... What the 'civilized West' would expect from 'those Russians'? :-D
Kolokol:
- So, it is something like a Topol-M on steroids, Right?
- Yes, it is. Most facts says that it will be rather a 'heavier SS-27', than a 'mobile-based Bulava'. If, as media says, it would be able to carry up to 10 warheads - then it's payload should be near 2 tonns (i.e. its should be a '2-tonn throwweight' mobile complex):
(10 warheads x 90 - 100 kg per lightest warhead) = 900 - 1000 kg 'nuke payload'; and, additionally, 900 - 1000 kg for Anti-ABM rigs.
- So, I can prognose the payload for new ICBM somewhere between 1800 and 2500 kgs.
N.Sokov:
> "Land-based Bulava" is not "new Pioneer-like IRBM". Bulava is a strategic SLBM, which so far has refused to fly from subs. My hypothesis - and this is only a hypothesis - is that they launched Bulava from land, which would have required few modifications. It can also be classified as a "variant" of Bulava, which is legally possible.
- Again, the 'Land-based Bulava', could be 'Pioneer-like' 'in spirit' (as a weapon, designed for continental strikes primarily as well as suitable for intercontinental strikes). Formally, it could be an ICBM, with it's maximal range over 6000 km. Practically, with a 'Bulava' range of 7000 - 8000 km, it is 'very restricted' ICBM, but may be with a valuable ability to strike quickly on the middle-ranged targets.
- But 'Pioneer-like' 'land-based Bulava' is still a rumor, - so there's no need to discuss a non-existing system...
- Also, I can't believe that Russia needs 'land-based Bulava' right now. The reasons both technical (Iskander able on supress EuroABM radars better) and political (nobody wants 'Pershing-3's :-) in Europe).
> Can you explain the "cruise-quasiballistic" point? Legally, ballistic and cruise are different, although, of course, once you get to maneuverable ballistic the difference could become murky.
- I see two ways to install the new R-500 cruise missile on the 'Iskander':
a) Install a 'single-staged' 'purely cruise' missile on this launcher (platform);
b) Have on 'Iskander' a two-staged system: use a 'semi-ballistic' 'old' missile of Iscander-M as a 'basis' for first semiballistic stage (booster), and install on this booster the second stage, made as cruise, highly-maneuverable missile...
Note: the term 'semiballistic' regards to Iskander-M, because it's ballistic missile have a 'flat' trajectory...
> The news, however, seemed to state quite clearly that this was a launch of a short-range cruise missile (i.e., less than 500 km) as per the INF Treaty. Ballistic Iskander also can have the range of less than 500 km...
- Again, the keyword is 'variative payload' - please see the previous post.
- Yes, 'ballistic Iskander-M' has a range of up to 450 - 500 km. BUT: with conventional warhead of 480 kg weight!!!
Just imagine:
- If you install a nuked payload - a small 90 - 100 kg warhead on the same missile, that able to carry 480 kg warhead, - missile will significantly increase the flight range, isn't it?
- Please look at the difference: 90 - 100 kg for nuked version and 480 kg for 'conventional' version.
has anyone thought about this test being just a simple lie? What if it was just an old missle, ss 18 or something similar!
Quote: "The RS-24 is a modification of a single-warhead version of post-Soviet Russia's first indigenous ICBM, the Topol-M. Since a mobile version of the Topol-M has been tested, the RS-24 could require as few as three tests before it is deemed operational, Safranchuk said."
Kubo, I don't think so. RS-18 or RRs-20 are no longer produced and are no suited to mobile launchers. They were also manufactured in Ukrainia. Such a big lie will erode the credibility and therefore the deterrence potential of the SRF.
The “anabolized Topol-m” is the more likely hypothesis.
According to a story linked to on the rosprom website the new Iskander missile has already gotten the Iskander-K designation. K is for "krilotaya" or "cruise missile." The story goes on to say that from Kaliningrad the Iskander-K can hit the planned missile defense base in Poland. What they need now is the Pak-fa to protect Iskander from Polish F-16's the story goes on to say....
> The story goes on to say that from Kaliningrad the Iskander-K can hit the planned missile defense base in Poland.
- Yes, the distances of run for Iskanders, launched from Kalinigrad exclave, is somewhere between 300 - 700 km to Poland and 600 - 900 km to Czhekhia.
- Even 'Iskander-N' (with a small-weight nuclear warhead), able to reach one or even both of these bases, and Iskander-K - will be able to reach both bases, for sure.
- But presently, 'Iskander-K / N' testing, - is JUST A WARNING to Polish politicians, to Czhech establishment and to European NATO.
- As to US - it has made it's choice, definitely...
"- But presently, 'Iskander-K / N' testing, - is JUST A WARNING to Polish politicians, to Czhech establishment and to European NATO."
A warning of what? Are you implying Russia will attack them if they help the US with ABM defense? Thing is I don't know what it adds that Backfires or Fencers couldn't already do. Not much more than saber rattling.
> A warning of what?
- Just that: they'll be a 'primary targets' in the case of 'bad scenario'.
> Are you implying Russia will attack them if they help the US with ABM defense?
- No. But, the ABM RADARs in Europe and near Russian borders, will be 'PRIMARY TARGETS' for Russia, in the case of massive US 'first strike' with cruise missiles on Russian IRBM bases and other military installations, because THESE ABM RADARs, are able to make a 'first-step projections' of the IRBMs trajectories, launched from Russian territory in the counterstrike. So these radars MUST BE SUPPRESSED, in order to make a Russian counterstrike effective!
- The data about Russian IRBM trajectories, acquired by 'EuroABM radars' (and not only EURO, - in prospective), will be then - VERY QUICKLY, - sent to Alaska, as 'digital data' (digital description of trajectories), to help the Alaskian tier of ABM to intercept Russian IRBMs...
- Also, these data could be sent to the US surface ships with SM-3 interceptors, if these ships will be placed somewhere in the north Alaskian waters...
- WITHOUT ABM RADARS in the Russian borders, the Alaskian and surface-ship tiers will be rather ineffective, in intercept of massive IRBM counterstrike.
- So, the ABM RADARs near the Russian borders is a KEY ELEMENT of effective 'anti-russian' ABM defence. It's just a 'first tier'; and without this 'first tier', all other tiers could be ineffective... Again, these facts made the EuroABM radars 'the primary target' in the 'bad scenario', and Europeans should know this...
- NOT 'Ten EuroABM Interceptors', BUT a few EuroABM RADARs, - will give to the NATO and to the US a possibility of 'first disarming strike'!
Sorry, not IRBMs, - ICBMs...
ICBM flight-tested yesterday and "showed" in Russian TV was a pure SS-25 "Topol." It means that TV footage is a cheat. Real new ICBM must be similar to SS-24 or SS-X-26 missiles. That is why Kremlin didn't authorize to show it on public.
How works this "cruise" Iskander-k? Explanations please.
Russian:
Explain to me again why the United States would launch a first strike, “out of the blue” nuclear attack on Russia?
Or, at least, create for me a plausible international scenario that would suggest at least the possibility of such a war occurring.
Frank Shuler
USA
Kolokol:
The only reference I have been able to read regarding the before mentioned “new cruise missile” is that it is completely compatible with the Iskander ground support equipment, uses the same TEL vehicles and radar-communication systems. Sounds like this weapon is suppose to compliment the Iskander in defense planning.
Frank Shuler
USA
So, it is simply a CM launched from the Iskander TEL? Nothing strange like a cruise missile boosted by an Iskander that start to “breath” after the ballistic re-entry.
Kolokol:
As best I can tell, it's just a "simple" cruise missile. Any other information is appreciated.
Frank Shuler
USA
Hello gentleman!
From the TV-Spot and the pictures I saw, I can't deny the heritage to the standard Topol-M and it is leaner and more slender than a submarine missile (although I never saw a Bulava).
As frequently announced - and discussed in this thread - Russia is willing to MIRV that Topol-M missile and whatever START is saying...all these treaties of the 80ties and 90ties are merely garbage today. There are new needs and a new confident to show his possibilities...this counts for both, the US and Russia.
Russia has a long tradition in rather modifying existing things than to invent quite new ones. So I would opt for a minor change to "steroid" the SS-27 which is of course declared and labeled as "new missile".
As regards to the Iskander I just read an article (http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/4229) which announces deployment of the "Tender" (SS-26) with two missile brigades in 2007: 92nd missile brigade of the Privolzhky-Uralsky military district and the 107th missile brigade of the Far Eastern military district. Quite unimpressive locations if someone intends to issue a warning for poland...Obviously no one (at this time)considers a deployment in Kaliningrad district.
Regards to everyone from bernd reuter
I was right! It is new heavy ICBM with 12000 kilometers range and 6-10 MIRV warheads with 150-300 kT yield each, not any Topol-M class light missile. It is planned to introduce this new ICBM into service around 2011-2013 as Topol-M deploying process will be completed.
http://www.lenta.ru/articles/2007/05/30/sotona/
PS. It is obvious this ICBM must have throw-weight about 3-4 tons!
I bet the throw-weight would be around 2 tons.
Ten warheads of 200 kg each equals 2 tons plus additional countermeasures and PBV equipment is 3-4 tons total.
So- how can this missile be a heavy ICBM when it looks like Topol-M? I'm very confused :(
I've read the reports saying it's a 10 warhead missile, surely no modification of Topol-M could fit that many?
> So - how can this missile be a heavy ICBM when it looks like Topol-M?
- The second stage is 'little more' (relatively to Topol-M ORJ) in diameter, so it able to contain MORE SOLID PROPELLANT. And
even, maybe, - MORE ENERGY-EFFICIENT propellant.
Again: MORE PROPELLANT = MORE PAYLOAD. MORE ENERGY = MORE PAYLOAD.
> Ten warheads of 200 kg each equals 2 tons plus additional countermeasures and PBV equipment is 3-4 tons total.
- You're NOT right. Ten LIGHTEST warheads, 90 - 100 kg each = 900 kg + same amount of anti-ABM equipment = 1800 kg minimal
payload.
> I bet the throw-weight would be around 2 tons.
- I think so.
> I was right!
- You're NOT right. The link you've cited, it's just a 'private opinion' of individual (not official!) Ilya Kramnik. Ilya
Kramnik may be wrong (as well as me, of course... :-) ).
- Just be LOGICAL: media and officials says, that the new missile was launched FROM EXISTING 'Topol-M' TRANSPORTER... How do
you think, - HOW MANY TONS, additionally to 47-tonn 'Topol-M', this transporter ABLE TO CARRY???
- Do you know, 'EXPERT', - the ICBM with 4-tonn payload and 10000 km range, needs to have a start weight NEAR 100 tonn? (I
think 90 tonn is absolute minimum, due to ENERGITICAL properties of THE BEST liqued and SOLID PROPELLANTS).
So don't be expert, - be logical... ;-)
> Explain to me again why the United States would launch a first strike, "out of the blue" nuclear attack on Russia?
> Or, at least, create for me a plausible international scenario that would suggest at least the possibility of such a war occurring.
- Dear Frank, I have the very possible scenario 'in mind'. But, I need some time to 'write it down' to the 'electronic paper' ;-) , so I intend to place this scenario on the blog, if Pavel allows it (if not, - I'll place it as a web page, somewhere in the Net).
- Please give me some time, - up to the two weeks, - to 'write the scenario down' in English...
- The main properties of the scenario:
a) The scenario is REALLY FEASIBLE for US (so it must be 'taken into account' in military doctrine planning);
b) The scenario explains very good (and may be explains excellent), the worries of Russia regarding the 'Euro-ABM' (and these worries, as you know, force Russia to create new, high-tech and effective, tools of nuclear deterrence, like RS-24)...
Here the interesting information about R-500 first test from RegNum.Ru:
Citation: '[During the test], the R-500 missile has maneuvering by program. The average speed of flight was from 230 to 260 meters per second' (830 - 940 km/h).
- If this speed is maximal (optimal, cruise, - doesn't matter) for R-500, - then, my earlier assumption about 'two-staged' system was WRONG: it's seems that the R-500 is 'almost conventional' SUBSONIC CRUISE MISSILE, - only launched from unusual platform...
- It's interesting, how much R-500 missiles, 'Iskander-K' able to carry? Two? Maybe - Four? (???) The cruise missile should have less weight, in comparision with ballistic, as they don't need to store oxidizer 'on a board'.
OK guys, here's a small but clear enough photo of SS-2x / RS-24
Really, it's a 'Topol-M', reinforced & MIRVed...
To "Russian": Please try to keep your comments brief and to the point. And please do not overuse ALL CAPS - your entries make comments hard to read.
Yours using all caps seems to be responsible for the problems you were having - all filters mark your messages as spam. Yours posting from a blacklisted IP doesn't help either.
Finally, I would appreciate if you could consider using another nickname - you are not the only Russian here.
To "Expert": There is no reason to believe the lenta.ru numbers.
This news came as a BOMBSHELL to me, we all thought that there will be Topol-Ms and Bulavas and that was it,but when they announced this "Satan" my jaw fell open,so Solovtsov was right?There will be a new super heavy ICBM, what I wonder is why did the russian media try to fool us by showing us a simple Topol launch ?And will it be a liquid or solid fuelled ICBM? Satan was liquid fuelled so it will be logical to expect its successor to be as well.
> ...but when they announced this "Satan" my jaw fell open, so Solovtsov was right?
- No, it's not a 'Satan', it's just a 'customized' Topol-M with near 2 tonn throw-weight.
> ...There will be a new super heavy ICBM, what I wonder is why did the russian media try to fool us by showing us a simple Topol launch?
- It's not a trick, it's a real start; the RS-24 is slightly more, than 'Topol-M', in dimesions.
> And will it be a liquid or solid fuelled ICBM?
- It's a solid-fueled 'Topol-M' successor.
> Satan was liquid fuelled so it will be logical to expect its successor to be as well.
- Again, the 'Satan' or 'Stiletto' successor, - i.e. MIRVed liqued-fuelled silo-based heavy ICBM with 4 - 8 tonn throw-weight, - should be tested somewhere between 2010 - 2015...
There is another interesting question-what kind of PBV is used by MITT on RS-24? Solid-fueled or liquid-fueled? It's known that during the period of investigations on "Universal" theme (Topol-M is a successor of "U...") in 1989-1991 two PBV variants were developed-heavier but more effective liquid-fueled PBV
based on monofuel PRONIT and light solid-fueled PBV.
I just read an article from Nezavisimaya Gazeta that stated the RS-24 project started out as basically a Topol-M fitted with Bulava warheads.
Russian:
Looking forward to your “scenario”. I sincerely appreciate the English translation too! My linguistic skills are sorely lacking.
Frank Shuler
USA
Vincent:
The rumors and counter-rumors about this missile test are nothing short of amazing. With few facts, we are left to hypnotize. However, given what we “know” it seems the Nezavisimaya Gazeta article presents a most plausible explanation. With the Moscow Institute of Heat Technology responsible for the design and manufacturing of both the Topol-M and Bulava missiles, it seems only logical that components from both systems would be used to create the new road-mobile MIRV RS-24.
Frank Shuler
USA
Development of new liqued-fuel missile doesn't seem very likely if you take the longer boost stage of liquid propellant into account. Unless this can be cured with today's technology, of course.
Frank, a preemptive nuclear strike has always been an option for US military in a hypothetic war against Russia. If you need proof, google for "parallel history project" and read some declassified NATO documents. And that's the only thing Russians need to know when planning their defenses. Why such a war could break out is absolutely unimportant from military point of view, and we come here to discuss military matters, not politics.
Let us hypothesizing a little bit more. The new thing is something like a Topol-M with Bulava warheads. We know Bulava have a throw-weight of 1.15 ton for a 8.000 km range. So for 10 “Bulava warheads” (pretty small ones) and a similar range, it will have a throw-weight of almost 2 tons. So it cannot be simply a “usual Topol-M” with MIRV. It should be heavier.
Furthermore START-I states parameters to both define “a new system” or “a variant”. Ivanov claimed that RS-24 is START-compliant, so fall in the “new system” category. Again, it should be heavier.
I bet, it mass will be over 50 tons. How much? We don’t know. More thoughts are welcomed. :-)
> I bet, it mass will be over 50 tons. How much? We don’t know. More thoughts are welcomed. :-)
- 'Topol-M' has a start mass of 47 tonns... 'RS-24', to be classified as a new system under START restrictions, need have the start weight (47 tonns + 10 %) = 52 tonns at least.
- I think, the estimation of start weight of RS-24 between 52 and 55 tonns is pretty accurate and is in good accordance with other data, such as payload (near 2 tonns), and using for 'RS-24', a 16-wheeled transporter of 'Topol-M'.
President of Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, commented today the recent testing of RS-24 and R-500; here some citations:
'World has changed, and some attempts to make it single-polar, has made; some participants of international relations, conceive a desire to dictate their will to all other participants, without any adoptions of their activity with international law. This is nothing else but dictate and imperialism', - Vladimir Putin says.
'Our american partners withdraw from an ABM restrictions treaty. They was warned, that we will undertake some measures in return, to keep the strategic balance in the world, and our answer will be asymmetrical.'
Egor:
The Pentagon has a plan for preemptive nuclear strike warfare against Albania. (smile) After all, that’s what the Pentagon and Kremlin do. I have no doubt the Russians, as did the Soviets, have a well thought out and comprehensive plan for a first strike on the United States. It is to be expected. Militaries are charged with the defense of their country; from today’s enemies and those perceived in the future. I envy your ability to remove politics from military matters. But, then again I guess you’ve never heard or agree with the famous quotation from Carl von Clausewitz (paraphrased), "War is a continuation of politics by other means."
Your argument however is flawed. If the Pentagon is charged with the defense of America with no regards to politics, only tasked with defense against any threat no mater how far in the future, then the proposed ABM system in Poland and the Czech Republic is essential. However, if you factor international politics into the mix, the project seems less “critical”. Don’t you agree?
Frank Shuler
USA
Does somebody has already Information’s whether the MAZ 79221 TEL have to be further modified to swallow the extra weight of that RS-24 (e.g. with a ninth axle, and by that to turn it progressively into a centipede :-) )?
bernd reuter
> My linguistic skills are sorely lacking.
Dear Frank, - you can use any of online translator, such as of 'ProMT' (Project 'Machine Translation'):
www.online-translator.com/text.asp?lang=en
This translator has English interface.
> Does somebody has already Information’s whether the MAZ 79221 TEL have to be further modified to swallow the extra weight of that RS-24 (e.g. with a ninth axle, and by that to turn it progressively into a centipede :-) )?
- I think the eight axles will be enough; it seems that 'Topol-M' transporter have enough 'margin of safety', regarding to the missile weight, even in it's original incarnation... :-)
- And, if you want to see a 'centipede', here the 'autodragon' - MAZ-7907 with 12 axles, 24 wheels (24x24), able to carry up to 150 tonns with speed up to 40 km/h:
denisovets.narod.ru/maz/mazpages/maz7907.html
- Designed exlusively for carrying a mobile missile complex 'Tselina-2' with (UR-100N UTTH)-class IRBM, which throw weight should be 4 tonns; project was not finished due to financial difficulties after collapse of USSR.
Real monster! :-)
Hey, "Russian"! Go in peace making your unfounded and naive assumptions somewhere else...
You are constantly spaming your oddly enough theories that "RS-24 is a Topol-M class light missile designed to be quasi-IRBM" without taking into account both arms control treaties and ballistics.
> Go in peace making your unfounded and naive assumptions somewhere else
- Really, the your, "Expert", opinion:
> It is obvious this ICBM must have throw-weight about 3-4 tons!
- is absolutely naive. So please don't blame me with your own total incompetence.
- Really, you're the most incompetent "expert" I ever see... :-) You even can't understand the two simpliest things:
a) ICBM of 4 tonns class payload must have the near 100-tonn start mass (SS-24 Scalpel for example, also SS-19 Stiletto);
b) Official message clearly says: the RS-24 was launched from a modified TEL of 'Topol-M' ICBM (i.e. MAZ 79221).
- Do you know, "Expert", that the MAZ 79221 TEL, current carrier of 'Topol-M', can carry just 80 tonns max?
- Compare (a) and (b) and uchi matchast' :-).
- Again: don't be expert, - be competent... ;-)
> You are constantly spaming your oddly enough theories that "RS-24 is a Topol-M class light missile designed to be quasi-IRBM"
- Again, you're totally muddled and misinterpreted my words. The citation above is not words of mine. It's your own empty fantasies.
- OK, you're trying to ascribe to me the words "RS-24 is a Topol-M class light missile designed to be quasi-IRBM".
- And what I really say:
a) 'RS-24 is a Topol-M class light missile'.
- No. RS-24 is Topol-M class missile of 'light-middle' class.
b) "RS-24 is a missile designed to be quasi-IRBM"
- No again. Please learn to read... :-) Above is my opinion about the hypothetic 'land-based Bulava' (a 30-tonn 'Pioneer-like' IRBM / ICBM).
- So don't muddle my words again, OK?
Part 1: Let's classify!
(M) SS-25 Sickle (RS-12M Topol) - 45 tonns SW - 1.0 tonns TW
(M) SS-27 Topol-M (RS-12M2 Topol-M) - 47 tonns SW - 1.2 tonns TW
(M) SS-28 Noname (RS-24 Noname) - 53 tonns SW - 2.0 tonns TW (???)
(M) SS-24 Scalpel (RS-22 Molodets) - 105 tonns SW - 4.0 tonns TW
(S) SS-19 Stiletto (RS-18 UR-100N) - 106 tonns SW - 4.4 tonns TW
(S) SS-18 Satan (R-36M2 Voevoda) - 210 tonns SW - 8.8 tonns TW
where:
- 'SW' is 'start weight', and 'TW' is 'throw-weight'
- (M) - mobile complex is possible or deployed
- (S) - silo-based complex only
- (???) - estimation
-----
Part 2: Get mobile!
- Simple analysis of chronology show that Russian RSF becomes 'more and more' :-) mobile:
SS-18 (Silo) -> SS-19 (Silo) -> SS-24 (Mob) -> SS-25 (Mob) -> SS-27 (Mob) -> SS-28 (Mob)
- Note: the 'RS-24' is under 'SS-28' designation in this list.
SS-X-28 is the western nick to the Kuryer, but I am not sure.
RS-24 sholud be the "SS-X-29"
Russia have every political and strategic reason to defy USA moves.
Yes Pavel, both rethorics are ludicruous since both countrys don´t need to be adversaries.
About the needless of nuclear weapons I agree to that, for the better of humanity, but this is only a dream and as long as other countrys have nuclear weapons or, as long, as they militarily more strong them Russia, like USA and NATO (military alliance), Russia will need this devices for protection.
USA wants world supremacy without any challenges or rebelion even from Russia and China.
USA will militarize the use of space and attack other countrys space systens when it wants so, as the Pentagon has said.
So yes Russia and China have reasons to concern about USA intentions.
Alopes:
Russia is a vast country with border interests stretching from Europe to the Near & Far East. Anything that happens in that area affects Russian security. All this is natural and understood. However, it is a changing world requiring new thinking and politics. Over the last few years, the United States has eliminated the Peacekeeper (MX) missile system and now the Advance Cruise Missile (ACM) from its nuclear inventory. These two weapons served only one purpose; holding Russia, and only Russia, at risk. It seems, the United States no longer finds that a necessity. American enemies of the future do not have to include Russia but the burden of that decision falls on Moscow. If Russia can set aside the Cold War mentality that seems to grip its policies, partnership with America can create many opportunities. Failing that, Russia will only frighten more countries into NATO and create an endless cycle of suspicion and confrontation.
I vote for partnership.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank
Neither Russia had to include USA among its "enemys".
But as Puting said, it was USA that started that question not Russia.
About the weapons USA has the Tomahawk cruise missile and i believe that is a good deterrent on Russia don´t.
I don´t aggre that the Burden falls on Russia about the relationship.
A real partnership needs that both players do care for the other concerns and don´t impose their positions as a superior and definitive one.
Also the reaction of some of Europe and USA officials tells us much about their care about that relationship.
They say that Russia isn´t been so "democratic" as they expect.
They don´t "expect" a russian reaction since Russia is not a "Target".
Well if Russia is not a target of USA 5735 active nuclear weapons and 9960 total nuclear weapons so
USA also isn´t the target of Russian 5830 active Nuclear weapons and total of 16000.
So i question if Russia isn´t the enemy so don´t matter for USA or Europe if Russia are building cruise missiles or another ICBM since there will be no war, one more ICBM to a total of 500 ICBMs isn´t important.
But that is not the reaction of Europe. They are not sayng to Russia that don´t matter how many missiles Russia build.
They are only judging that Russia isn´t democratic enough and sayng that Russia will decide by its actions if it will have good or bad relations.
The question is that only Russian actions are being judged here.
Russia this, Russia has to be that way or this way.
And Russia concerns aren´t been observed.
They simple don´t care.
Is, in their opinion, that Russia must accept the way the West do military and strategic moves to be considered a "good" partner.
Otherwise, Russia isn´t democratic and is a danger to its neighbours.
This is a hierarchy complex way of relationship that don´t fit the fact that Russia has a military (nuclear)balance with NATO and Russia must accept threats to that military balance in order to be a good partner.
I think Russia will not accept this kind of hierarchy way of relationship in wich it is by definition the bad boy who should justifie itself to the teacher if it brakes the rules of submission it will be excluded from the class (good relations partnership).
Alopes:
I completely agree. It’s a little silly for the President of the United States to lecture any foreign country on democracy, much less Russia. The statements of President Bush are condescending at best and ignorance at worst. However, I do think his opinions are shared by a great many Americans who feel the opportunities for great change and cooperation between America and Russia have been lost. I’m not so pessimistic but I understand the frustrations. These are changing times between Russia and the US and I think both sides are trying to find their way.
Living in the US, I don’t have any personal insight on the European reaction to these issues. However in the press I have read, the European response to the new Russian ICBM and cruise missile tests has been muted at best. I think the EU countries are far more concerned by Russia’s energy policies than the number of its nuclear weapons. I think that is also part of Russia’s frustration. She keeps “rattling the sword” and no one seems to listen. President Putin has threatened to set this treaty aside or end Russia compliance in that agreement, all to no avail. Russia says it will target Poland and the Czech Republic if America goes ahead with its missile defense project and yet there doesn’t seem much concern by NATO. All this escalation of words really accomplishes is to remind Europe of the old Soviet days and that reminder only strengthens the American position.
I always appreciate your insights.
Frank Shuler
USA
> She keeps “rattling the sword” and no one seems to listen.
- I don't think the Putin's words is a 'rattling the sword'. Really, these words are just a warning, a message to our European and US partners...
- If these warnings / messages are ignored by our partners, - really, it's not Russian concern. Anyone able to hear, - has heard.
It is clear that for the West the Russian security concerns doesn’t matter at all. So, Russia must behave consequently. The Russian security concern obviously to the Russians. If the military thinks these sites must be targeted, lets target. Words are largely irrelevant today. The first task is to assure the Russian security and integrity, fist by continuing with the fast economic grow, second by cutting down intrusive hands (subversive western-supported NGOs, MI6 support to Chechen terrorism and so on) and third by the deployment of compact survivable and high-readiness strategic Force.
Remember Kosovo. This scenario would have happened in the North-Caucasus. The presence of Nuclear Forces prevented it.
Now, back to the ”on-topic”. It would be interesting to know the chosen “mix”. I.e. how many of these 69 promised Topol-M will be single warhead and how many MIRVed. It’s worth noting that 10 warheads per missile give considerable flexibility. I.e. you can vary from 69 warhead to 690. A “half and half” mix seems fine.
Russian:
A “warning” is when one country tells another that its actions have consequences. A “threat” is when the specific consequences are spelled out.
Russia statements regarding a “moratorium” on the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (the revised Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty) and ending the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty cross the line from warning to threat. That being said, Russia has every right under these agreements to legally withdraw its compliance if it feels its basic security is threatened. But remember, these agreements also provide certain benefits to Russia as well. It will be interesting to see how this situation evolves.
Frank Shuler
USA
Kolokol:
My friend, nuclear weapons don’t “prevent” anything. In 1982, I don’t think Argentina thought for a moment that Great Britain having nuclear weapons were a deterrent in their attempt to seize the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas). If nuclear weapons are needed to hold together a country from internal strife and external meddling, the Soviet Union would exist today.
Russia will provide for its defense in its own best interest as do all nations.
Frank Shuler
USA
Kolokol:
A very Interesting question on the “mix”. My guess would be the post-START (2010) mobile Topol-M installations would, of course, be MIRVed. I suspect the existing silo missiles would not be updated with multiple warheads until their regularly scheduled maintenance cycles. Remember the first SS-27s went into the ground in 1997 and will need refurbishing in the 2017 timeframe. Just a guess but this approach seems to be the most efficient in updating the force.
Frank Shuler
USA
Pavel, Frank, Kolokol ... what does the forum guess the status of a Russian ABM defense for Southern Russia is - is there one ??? and could this become part of the Iranian missile defense in Europe that everyone is suggesting that NATO needs. It seems to me that it's being pushed more by the Bush White House with regard to industry, defense agencies making coin than the governments involved. Could this whole thing really be an insulator for Israel - who probably will react offensively if NATO does not go ahead with `a so-called shield' ???
Ozzy:
While I think Russia is beginning to look at missile and nuclear developments in Iran as a future issue, I suspect defenses to any Persian missile launch today is limited. At some point the S-400 missile system will deployed around the country to provide limited defense against such a launch. I suspect the S-400 system is superior to the American PAC-3 Patriot but less capable than the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) or the Israeli Arrow. (Just my opinion)
Iran, India, and China are growing threats to Russian influence in the Near & Far East. Comments are always made on China’s economy roaring by the United States in the next thirty years or so (probably very true) but little thought is given to how this will affect Russia. In fifteen years, India is on schedule to have an inventory of over 2000 nuclear weapons and be a major world nuclear power. Why does India need such an arsenal, ten times the size of Great Britain, and how will that affect Russian military and diplomatic planning? And remember, there is no more ambitious nation on the face of the earth than Iran.
Ozzy, at first I didn’t understand the scope of the American ABM initiate in Poland and the Czech Republic. I thought this non-NATO system was to protect American military bases in Europe but I began to understand the dynamics, the science, and realized the flight path of an ICBM launched from Iran will literally fly over the proposed site. The X-band radar system that is to be based to the south of the actual missile site, reinforces my conclusion. You do make an interesting point, what would Russia do if Iran fifteen years from now did take a shot at America? Or a better question, how would the US react if missiles were launched over Russian territory to attack America?
Frank Shuler
USA
I think if Russia feels threatened by Iran (a unlikely threat for at least a decade), it will deploy the S-400 or the Autocrat (S400 with S-300VM missiles) looking south.
PD: Gentlemen, I suggest to move this discussion to the “Ludicrous …” thread. Keep here just the Topol-m and its “new brother” discussion.
[paraphrased quotations from AP]
Today at the G8 Summit at Heiligendamm, Russian President Vladimir Putin has told his U.S. counterpart George W. Bush that Moscow would drop its objections to a planned missile defense shield if the radar-based system was based in Azerbaijan.
At Thursday's meeting Putin told Bush he would not seek to retarget Russian missiles on Europe if Washington agreed to put the system in the central Asian nation of Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic, The Associated Press reported. The American National Security Adviser Steve Hadley called it an "interesting proposal." "Let's let our experts have a look at it," Hadley said.
This is so interesting…
Frank Shuler
USA
> At Thursday's meeting Putin told Bush he would not seek to retarget Russian missiles on Europe if Washington agreed to put the system in the central Asian nation of Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic...
- OK, that's 'la minute de vérité' for the US EuroABM planning.
- As I told earlier, - the RADAR is a keyword, - not 'ten Polish interceptors'... :-)
So:
a) If US EuroABM radar will be placed in Czekh Republic, and will be able to monitor the Russian ICBMs at their start points, - then, the US 'EuroABM' is intended mainly against the Russia.
b) If EuroABM radar will be placed in Azerbaijan, and will be unable, - due to it's location and topological orientation, - to trace Russian ICBMs at their start points, - then, the EuroABM is intended mainly to 'protect European allies of US' from 'that bad guys of Iran and Northern Korea'...
Russian:
...I think what we will learn is the GBI system envisioned for Central Europe will not work in the proposed Azerbaijani facility because of launch restrictions; the Iranian missile would be long past such a location before the ground based interceptor (GBI) could achieve ballistic orbit to intercept...
[I moved my discussion to the above topic]
Frank Shuler
USA
Dear Frank:
> I suspect the S-400 system is superior to the American PAC-3 Patriot but less capable than the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) or the Israeli Arrow. (Just my opinion)
- I think the comparision 'S-400 vs THAAD' or 'S-300 vs Patriot PAC-3' is not quite correct, without just one detail, - S-400 'Triumph', able to use 3 main types of missiles:
a) 'Old' (48N6E2 GRAU index) - missiles of 'S-300PMU' system (hit range 150 km max, hit altitude 27 km max, target velocity up to 2800 metres per second)
b) 'New' 9M96E2 GRAU index - 'own' missiles of 'S-400' system (hit range 150 km max, hit altitude 35 km max, target velocity up to 3000 metres per second)
c) 'Newest' (GRAU index still unknown) - 'own' missiles of 'S-400' system (hit range 400 km max, hit altitude near 100 km max, target velocity up to 4800 metres per second).
- So, only the S-400 with 'newest' missile ('c'-type), can be compared to THAAD.
- Again, S-400 'Trimph' is universal anti-aircraft / anti-ballistic system, while the THAAD is dedicated 'anti-ballistic'. For example, S-400 with 9M96E / 9M96E2 missiles, able to hit effectively the cruise missiles at 5 - 10 metres altitude (yes, 5 - 10 metres above the ground); THAAD can't do this job.
- Finally, even S-400 'Trimph' with 'newest' missiles, - is not 'Russian answer to THAAD'. The answer will be the 'S-500' system, - an 'universal mobile anti-aircraft / anti-missile / anti-space defensive system', like Putin said in the recent (near two months ago) TV-report, where he command to start a development this new system to Ministry of Defence and to 'Almaz-Antei' concern, as a developer.
So, again, the comparision 'S-400 vs THAAD', - is not quit correct.
Quote: "As of December 2006, the Strategic Missile Forces operated 44 silo-based and three mobile missile systems. The SMF press service said earlier that, while 48 silo-based systems would be on duty by late 2007, the Teikovo base in central Russia's Ivanovo Region is being migrated to cutting-edge road-mobile missiles."
RIA Novosti
So 4 silo-based + 3 mibile Topol-M deployed: 7/year. The steady deploymet rate seems reached.
Is this in response to US missile shield?