The Russian Duma is expected to approve an agreement with Ukraine that will regulate cooperation between the two countries on maintaining the R-36M2 missiles (SS-18, also known as 15A18M). The missiles, listed in the agreement by the name of the entire system they are part of, 15P118M, were originally designed and produced in Ukraine.
The agreement was signed two years ago - in March 2006, but hasn't been ratified until now. It was reported that the cooperation with Ukraine will allow Russia to extend service life of R-36M2 missiles by additional ten years to 25 year. The missiles, deployed in the late 1980-early 1990s, are expected to reach the retirement age by 2014-2016.
UPDATE 02/12/08: President Putin signed the agreement into law on February 12, 2008.
The book
Comments
Pavel:
Do we now expect this agreement with Ukraine will permit the service life extension of the R-36M2 missile to 2014-2016 or are we to infer these missiles will continue in service for ten-to-twenty-five years beyond the 2014-16 time period? As a result of this agreement, do we suspect the operational inventory of SS-18s to stabilize at 50 or so?
Frank Shuler
USA
I think 25 years is a reasonable estimate - this will put the end of life for these missiles at around 2015. Five more years might be possible, extending the lifetime to about 2020.
Pavel:
Thanks for the clarification. It has been widely quoted here by Pentagon insiders; the Russian SS-18 fleet would end service by 2018. This report seems to reinforce that conclusion.
Frank Shuler
USA
So, it seems that relationshipts between Russia and Ukraine are not as bad as the Media claim. After all R-36 are still an important fraction of the Rocket forces and Russia seems not afraid to use Ukrainian collaboration to prolong the missiles lifes.
> I think 25 years is a reasonable estimate - this will put the end of life for these missiles at around 2015.
- The service life of R-36M2s (and may be some of R-36M UTTHs, after some modernizations), will be extended till, at least, 2020.
Russian:
Makes sense.
Do you think the “mythical” liquid fueled missile of the future will be build to replace the SS-18/19s or do you think the MIRVed SS-27 (RS-24 ) will be the future of Russian land based ICBMs?
I always appreciate your opinion.
Frank Shuler
USA
> Do you think the “mythical” liquid fueled missile of the future will be build to replace the SS-18/19s or do you think the MIRVed SS-27 (RS-24 ) will be the future of Russian land based ICBMs?
- First of all: this future liquid- (or solid- - why not?) fueled ICBM of heavy class, intended to be a replace to UR-100N UTTH or R-36M2, is not 'mythical'; rather, it's under consideration now.
- As it was publically told by officials, 'after 2015, we will have a decision about development of new heavy-class missile for RSF'.
- Also, - there's a point of view, circulating among our militaries and military experts, that lowering of number of R-36Ms down to the 'less-than-30-carriers' level, will be critical for the Russian national security; so, the Strategic Rocket Forces, re-oriented now on a maximal 'keeping' of existing heavy-class ICBMs, and on a maximal extension of their service life.
- The answer on the question, - will 'the light-class carrier' (i.e. SS-27 / RS-24) be the only ICBM type at RSF, or SS-27 / RS-24 will be accompanied with a new, heavy-class silo-based ICBM, - rely upon the geopolitical situation till 2015.
- Meanwhile, it was announced that 'after 2009 RSF will get 12 - 14 new Topol-M's each year' (compare it with present tempo of production - 7 Topol-M's per year).
Russian:
Please don’t interpret my “mythical liquid fueled missile” comment as disrespectful. I only comment on various American and Russian media reports as to this project. Personally, I would build the RS-24 in numbers in place of any near-term “heavy” ICBM option.
President, soon to be Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin has publicly stated the annual production of SS-27s to be approximately eight. I don’t see a big increase in Russian ICBM deployment.
Frank Shuler
USA
> Please don’t interpret my “mythical liquid fueled missile” comment as disrespectful.
- No offense, Frank.
> President, soon to be Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin has publicly stated the annual production of SS-27s to be approximately eight. I don’t see a big increase in Russian ICBM deployment.
- Here the direct link to the one of various Russian sources of Gen-Leutenant Solovtsov statement of December 17, 2007, about Topol-M production:
http://www.novopol.ru/print32837.html
(in Russian)
Russian:
That is an interesting statement by Solovtsov. It seems that the left hand is not talking to the right hand over there. Here is a transcript of a statement by First Deputy Prime Minister Ivanov. Sorry I can't link it as I had to get it off OpenSource.
CEP20071207950172 Moscow Interfax in Russian 1201 GMT 07 Dec 07
Moscow, 7 December. Russia is capable of producing six or seven intercontinental ballistic missiles Topol-M for land strategic nuclear forces annually, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov has said.
"We think that six or seven [missile systems] a year are within our capacity, if we take RVSN (Russian Strategic Missile Troops), land strategic nuclear forces. We think this is enough given our real capabilities," Ivanov said on Friday [7 December] at a meeting with veterans of the military-industrial commission under the presidium of the Council of Minister of the USSR.
Answering [journalists'] questions, Ivanov said that Russia will not be able to produce 30 Topol-M systems [a year], and there is not need for that.
Rich
That's strange. In the worst 90s year (1998) Russia produced and deployed 10 Topol-M. Now things should be supossedely better. So, there is a political desicion to produce up to 7 Topol-M or Putin/Ivanov words about the improving tendency are just empty noise.
> IVANOV, December 7: "We think that six or seven [missile systems] a year are within our capacity, if we take RVSN (Russian Strategic Missile Troops), land strategic nuclear forces. We think this is enough given our real capabilities," Ivanov said on Friday [7 December]...
> SOLOVTSOV, December 17: 'AFTER 2009 RSF will get 12 - 14 new Topol-M's each year'.
- I think the above statements are not mutually contradictory. Ivanov may told about the PRESENT (2008 - 2009) plans of production, and Solovtsov may told about the FUTURE (AFTER 2009) ones.
- So, I understand the situation as following:
(2007) - 7 Topol-Ms
(2008) - 7 Topol-Ms
(2009) - 6 or 7 Topol-Ms
(2010) - 12 - 14 Topol-Ms
Russian , 2008 just 5 Topol-M: 2 silo based, ending the deployment of the fifth regiment in Tatischevo and 3 mobile ones ending the deployment of the first wing on Teikovo.
PD: Sorry rate.
Russian,
The number of Topol-Ms in 2008 should be 8.
2 silo and 6 mobile.
> Russian , 2008 just 5 Topol-M
> The number of Topol-Ms in 2008 should be 8
- Gentlemen, all these 'exact' numbers are PLANS, and plans might be slightly changed.
- But, 'beyond' the exact numbers, - and official statements, - we need to see a TREND; and this trend looks like a double increase of Topol-M production, soon after 2009 - I think in 2010 - 2011 already.
Russian:
Trends are based on history. If production of the SS-27 missile has decreased from ten per year, when the initial deployments began in 1997/98, to seven-eight per year today, how can we interpolate that post 2010-11 the number will double in production?
Frank Shuler
USA
> If production of the SS-27 missile has decreased...
- You may be surprised, - but it was STABLE last years (7 - 8 Topol-M's per year).
> How can we interpolate that post 2010-11 the number will double in production?
- Frank, you've not understood me... It's not a 'numbers interpolation / extrapolation', - it's a trend in Russia's aspiration to keep strategic balance... Sorry, but you can't feel this, - because you are not here.
There's a great re-organization of semi-private weapon manufacturers now... For example, - the producers of strategic raw materials (like carbon monothread, titanium, etc.), - will be (or already) returned under the effective state control, with a secondary control from the market-oriented top-management.
We can call it 'Russian State Capitalism'... and the adjective 'STATE' is a keyword now. ;-)
- Anyway, why we need to discuss this? The prediction about increasing of Topol-M's production after 2009 was already made by Russian officials, - and only time can tell, - is this true or false prediction.
Russian:
Russian State Capitalism (what a great term) aside, I completely understand the need to keep the “strategic balance” with the United States. This is logical and expected. However, to be a “great power” in today’s geo-political world, more than nuclear weapons are needed. Russia today has an inventory of over 10,000 nuclear devices, more than the rest of the world combined. Yet, Russia seems to struggle for “great power” status. I think this is really more of an internal issue in Russian society; a nation with self-doubts about her place in the world, only natural for a country emerging from the old Soviet Union and only recently sovereign since 1991. I think President Putin recognizes this. Russia is the largest nation in the world, yet has a declining birthrate and is surrounded by adversaries. Energy exports will pour billions of rubles into the economy in the next thirty years; I expect to see Russia put monies into its conventional force and maintain only a creditable nuclear deterrent. Russia needs so much and its world is so uncertain. With such a small army in proportion to its borders, Russia needs a modern, mobile ground force complete with integrated communications and logistics. Russia needs satellites, computer systems for intelligence processing, tactical aircraft in large numbers to replace its aging fleet, and new air transport aircraft. While the Russian officer corps is superb, training of the basic recruit soldier must improve for Russia to make its army efficient. I bet the number of “strategic” nuclear weapons operationally deployed by 2018 will fall to around 1500 warheads. It will be enough.
My friend, I rely on your opinions as to the national mood in Russia today exactly because “I’m not there”. Your insights are invaluable and your opinion is always respected.
Frank Shuler
USA
> I think President Putin recognizes this.
- Most people here do think that the main Putin's intention, - to make Russia a strong and respectful European country, using the France, Germany, Finland and Sweden as social-economical models.
> However, to be a “great power” in today’s geo-political world, more than nuclear weapons are needed.
> Yet, Russia seems to struggle for “great power” status.
- Frank, I do appreciate your opinion, but sometime it's funny to look like propagandist stereotypes influence the point of view of the western people...
- I do believe you're completely wrong here: Russia _DO NOT NEED_ to struggle for the 'great power' status - and _HAS NO INTENTIONS_ to struggle for it.
We've learned lesson of Soviet Union very well (but it seems that USA is still in the hard process of such learning), so Russia do not intend to change the world 'in the image and likeness' of our own system (what's US still trying to do). Modern Russian people are realists, and those romantic dreams that 'We will build socialism in all the world and all the people in the world will live happily', - have gone with the Soviet Union.
- Again: Russia _DO NOT NEED_ to struggle for the 'great power status' - Russia only need 'to struglle for' economical prosperity of it's own citizens; and, Russia will pursue this goal with economical means; and, Russia will defend it's natural and people resources effectively: in our community, there's a _COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING_ that Russian resources looks like a 'delicious titbit' for the imperialistic intensions of our 'partners':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfyYZ9Q2vHI
(The above short music video is full of symbolism and represents ironically, in 'comics-style', the serious problems of Russia in 1990th, - such as civil inagreement, trends of separatism in regions and corruption of bureaucrats; but please see escpecially an episod from the 02:36 to 02:43 of the beginning ;-) ).
> Russia today has an inventory of over 10,000 nuclear devices, more than the rest of the world combined.
- And, - let's consider, - why Russia do need such a great nuclear power:
(a) NATO's conventional forces in Europe, outnumber Russian ones in a three-times;
(b) US, as an integral part of NATO, outnumber Russia both in the number of strategic warheads and in the number of strategic carriers deployed;
(c) US has, the most powerful in the world, oceanic fleet (Frank, - just try to answer, - why US do need such a giant fleet? You're afraid the pirates? ;-) );
(d) US has almost 7000 cruise missiles of 'Tomahawk' class, potentially capable to be quickly re-armed with a nuclear warheads (Frank, - why do you need such a giant amounts of 'conventional' cruise missiles? Using these missiles, you're capable 'to bomb into Stone Age' virtually any country in the world; but ask himself, - why do you need to do this?);
(e) US has the most technologically-sofisticated anti-air and anti-missile defence in the world, potentially influencing the world's strategic balance;
(f) US has the most powerful conventional and strategic forces in the world;
(g) US, as always since 1945, spin-up the 'weapon technology' race; the most annoying programs, directly influencing the world's strategic balance, are:
- X-51 Waverider hypersonic cruise missile program (so called 'hypersound at sea level' - a delivery platform, very hard to intercept);
- Air-Born Laser (Boeing ABL) program, as an internal part of NMD program;
- Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) program, as an internal part of NMD program;
- GBI and giant X-Band radars program, as an internal part of NMD program;
- New 'Reliable Replace Warhead' (RRW) program, - the brand new H-bomb for the US;
- X-43A hypersonic scramjet program;
- Brand new hypersonic warheads for ICBMs;
- Various, _extremally powerful_, surface fleet programs ('CVX / CVN-77' aircraft-carriers, 'Tikonderoga' class, 'Arleigh Burke' a.k.a. 'Always Broke' ;-) class, possibly the brand new 'Arsenal' class etc.);
- Various, _extremally quiet_, subs ('Seawolf' class, 'Virginia' class, follower of 'Ohio' SSBN);
- New ummanned bombers and attacking aircrafts (including strategic ones);
- Stealth fighters and bombers: F-22A Raptor and B-2 Spirit are already at service (and note that F-22A is _in mass production_);
- Great 'military informational networking' programs, to unite the strategic units into the global 'strategic informational network', as well as to unite all the tactical units on the battlefield, into the single 'tactical informational network' during a 'local conflicts'.
- Possibly, 'Pure Nukes' and 'Small Nukes' program, _lowering the threshold of nuclear weapons usage_ in a 'local conflicts';
- Possibly, 'Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator' (RNEP) program, - the new 'bunker crushing' nukes for the US;
- Possibly, various programs of ORBITAL (space-based) weapons (both anti-ground and anti-missile).
- Possibly, various programs of 'space aircraft', similar to X-34 / X-37 / X-40A / Venture Star;
... and this list is NOT complete...
- So, - what Russia can do with this? Only keep own 'inventory of nuclear devices' at the state, enough for EFFECTIVE nuclear deterrence...
Russian: I could only repeat my universal advice - Watch less Russian TV. It helps.
> Russian: I could only repeat my universal advice - Watch less Russian TV. It helps.
- My primary source is not 'Russian TV'.
- My primary source is Internet.
;-)
Russian:
Let me pose the question, with the United States possessing 5000 warheads, 4600 strategic and 400 tactical (B-61 bombs for use with tactical fighters) and with 2200 strategic weapons actively deployed; how many nuclear warheads does Russia need to have an “EFFECTIVE” nuclear deterrence?
Remembering the last nuclear warhead build in America was a W-88 in 1989.
Frank Shuler
USA
> Russian: I could only repeat my universal advice - Watch less Russian TV. It helps.
- Pavel, I, too, may give to you a good advice - please read this:
http://news.mail.ru/politics/1579898/print/
It really helps.
> Let me pose the question, with the United States possessing 5000 warheads, 4600 strategic and 400 tactical (B-61 bombs for use with tactical fighters) and with 2200 strategic weapons actively deployed; how many nuclear warheads does Russia need to have an “EFFECTIVE” nuclear deterrence?
- It's a question, Frank... In short, - nobody knows exactly... ;-)
- But, for better understanding of this question, we need to reformulate it, - for example, like this:
"With the United States possessing 5000 warheads, 4600 strategic and 400 tactical and with 2200 strategic weapons actively deployed; with the 7000 cruise missiles of 'Tomahawk' class actively deployed; with the 14 heavy air-carriers actively deployed; with the modern NMD facilities in the process of deploy; - how many nuclear warheads does Russia need to have an effective nuclear deterrence?"
- In my own opinion, (7000 'conventional' ALCMs + 14 heavy-class aircraft-carriers) are absolutely equal to a few thousands nukes in storage...
Why not?
Russian:
To correct a few facts:
The United States only has 11 aircraft carriers in the fleet and one is always in dry-docking for overhaul. Of the 10 deployable carriers usually only two or three are at sea in any given time.
The US Navy doesn’t have 7000 Tomahawk missiles. If the 54 Burke-class destroyers and the 22 Ticonderoga-cruisers all carry 32 Tomahawks; if the 3 converted Ohio-class SSGN submarines carry 154 cruise missiles and the 50 Los Angeles-class submarines carry 16 Tomahawks, the total number of weapons that can be deployed is, 3694. The conventional armed (1000 lb bomb) Tomahawk has a range of 900 nm. Hint; the US Navy doesn’t have 3694 Tomahawks either. By the way, the tactical Tomahawk can’t be rebuilt to house a nuclear weapon. The US does have 280 or so nuclear versions of the Tomahawk garrisoned in two naval arsenals on shore and held in reserve pending disposal.
At this point, the United States ABM system is little more than a research & development program and is years away from being a real “weapons system”. But today, every military expert here is confident the system could not stop a launched SS-27. The ABM system hasn’t even been tested against ICBMs decoys yet. There are no satellites to cue the system.
This does bring up a point however. What is deterrence? My definition is having the ability to strike back at an attacker with such force as to make the initial attack suicidal. What advantage would Russia enjoy if she destroyed the United States and lost her 120 largest cities? What would the United States gain if she defeated Russia at the cost of her largest 20 cities? The thought that there are winners in a nuclear war is madness. In a nuclear exchange between Russian and America there are no winners.
Let me ask you again, how many deterrent nuclear weapons do you think Russia needs? Just your opinion.
Frank Shuler
USA
> Let me ask you again, how many deterrent nuclear weapons do you think Russia needs? Just your opinion.
- In short: _the same_ amounts of _strategic carriers_ and _warheads_ deployed, as the US (according to the new treaty, 2200 warheads deployed both for Russia and US).
- Yuri Solomonov, chief constructor of SS-27, told recently that 'Russia will have not less than 2000 warheads deployed when SNP treaty become actual'.
- Decrease in number of warheads and / or strategic carriers deployed, beyond the 1.5 times of the actual US level, may be critical for Russian national security, - all the thinking people in Russia understand it, not only our militaries...
- Nukes in storage _must_ not be count, at least until the proper international or bilateral Treaty appear (and this future Treaty _must_ consider the balance in 'conventional' (practically, - QUASI-CONVENTIONAL NOW) forces.
As to 3694 ALCMs and 11 aircraft-carriers, - I need to correct some your conclusions about them, but I'd prefer to put my answer forward into the future postings, for better understanding.
Just a couple of questions:
Given that the 550-750kt mirvs on the R-36M are not the same warhead design as 550kt marv for the SS-27, would a new heavy ICBM use the same warhead developed for the SS-27, or would it use the R-36M warheads? And if so, what is the service life on the R-36M warheads?
I would also be very curious as to whether any of the remaining R-36M's have the single 20mt rv, and if a new heavy ICBM is built, will a certain number of those be equipped with a similarly large warhead?
Does anyone know the status of Russia's plans for warhead replacement beyond the relatively new SS-27 warhead?
Frank,
The real question here isn't the number of warheads. You are completely right about your deterrence theory with only one addition: you have to add the possibility of nuclear war because someone is convinced it can be won. In other words, the world was safest when MAD was widely accepted and while no one had doubts about inevitability of mutual destruction. Now, USA is trying to break that balance like Ronald Regan tried some time before. The real consequence is that someone might think in a certain moment of time, that nuclear war can be won. It is not the question of how effective AMD is. It is a state of someones mind. Arguments (even the wrong ones) leading to the conclusion that "out of the blue" attack + AMD could win the war, could make a world very unsafe. We are witnessing exactly this happening. Watch "Dr. Strangelove" again. Maybe this scenario is not so unreal.
Russian:
If the United States reduced its inventory to 2000 warheads, would the number of Russian warheads needed for deterrent also fall to 2000 weapons?
I honestly don’t think there is going to be any more arms reduction treaties as in the past. (START treaties). There may be agreements and declarations but no treaties. The rise of China in the next twenty-five years will make bi-national agreements between Russia and the US obsolete.
Remember, the 3694 ALCMs are not ALCMs but Tomahawk cruise missiles, big difference. Look forward to your future comments.
Frank Shuler
USA
> If the United States reduced its inventory to 2000 warheads, would the number of Russian warheads needed for deterrent also fall to 2000 weapons?
- It will depend on the progress of US and NATO 'conventional' forces, as well as of US strategic forces structure (mainly, of the total number and types of strategic delivery platforms).
- It will, also, depend on the military doctrine of the US and NATO (I mean mainly, a practical usage of 'small nukes' in agressions against the small independent states).
> There may be agreements and declarations but no treaties.
- "No treaties" situation is not suitable. Treaties, - or new 'Cold War', and new weapon race, - together, for the western civilization, with the endless 'antiterrorist' global war.
> The rise of China in the next twenty-five years will make bi-national agreements between Russia and the US obsolete.
- It's a problem of future.
> Remember, the 3694 ALCMs are not ALCMs but Tomahawk cruise missiles, big difference.
- I do understand it, but... what we call 'ALCM'? Air-Launched Cruise Missile as a class of weapon, or just a particular weapon system - AGM-86 'ALCM'? (really, Frank, US forces need to produce more bright names, not like 'SM-3 - Standard Missile mod. 3')... :-)
- Also, in the lack of my English, I've used the 'ALCM' term as a common name for all cruise missiles. It was my typo, because not all of them are 'Air-Launched' - but all are CRUISE ones.
Russian:
Thanks for the clarification on your comments regarding the Tomahawk cruise missile. And, I’ll try and get our Pentagon to come up with brighter, cooler names for our weapon systems. (smile)
Frank Shuler
USA
The whole discussion here reminds me on a similar one on the fas.org blog by Ivan Oelrich and one of the commenters of his entry:
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/10/reliable_replacement_warhead_i_1.php#more
and some nonsense:
>I’ll try and get our Pentagon to come up with >brighter, cooler names for our weapon systems.
Why doesn´t the Pentagon sell the right to name weapon systems to private companies? They could make a lot of money with names like coke-nuke or the UPS-missile.
Russian:
>>Pavel, I, too, may give to you a good advice - please read this:
http://news.mail.ru/politics/1579898/print/
It really helps.
--Please pardon my ignorance, but what point were you trying to make with this article? If you are referring to the report published to NATO, well those are just retired officers getting their opinion heard. But there is nothing new there. NATO has always had a "first use" policy regarding nuclear weapons. Although, over the last years, they have significantly reduced their reliance on nuclear weapons.
Rich
Ivan:
Good observations. Indeed you have described the world’s nightmare. I think what has changed since the days of the Soviet Union (now of course Russian) and American arms reduction treaties is the rise of the “other” nuclear powers. The world today is not so bi-polar as in the past. For example, India is committed to being a “great nuclear power” and is building an arsenal of nuclear weapons far outside its need of self-defense against Pakistan. India has designs on a nuclear weapons arsenal equal to any nation, Russia and the United States notwithstanding. Given such events, how will China respond? The world has gotten a lot more complicated than in the past.
Nuclear weapons are such a paradox. Can a nation be “great” without nuclear weapons? (Japan) or Can a nation with nuclear weapons be “great”? (Pakistan)
Frank Shuler
USA
> I’ll try and get our Pentagon to come up with brighter, cooler names for our weapon systems. (smile)
- Hmm.. Looks like Pentagon's fantasy has been really exhausted with those years, when these guys created such a bright names for Soviet ICBMs - yes, all these 'Segos', 'Stilletos', 'Sinners', 'Scalpels' and, of course, 'Satans'... ;-)
> Russia and Ukraine will maintain R-36M2 missiles...
- Meanwhile, there's an interesting news comes from Russian State Duma (Russian parlament): deputy Konstantin Zatulin, said recently: 'This agreement [with Ukraine] allow us to save twice... It's a question of the sums of 250 million roubles annually... This sum would be twice higher if we have refused cooperation with Ukraine'.
- Let's count: 25 roubles now equal to the 1 US dollar, so the annual sum on maintaining the R-36M2, will be:
(a) 10 million dollars 'with participation of Ukraine';
(b) 20 million dollars 'without participation of Ukraine'...
- Well, both sums are _very moderate_ for the modern Russia, - especially considering the current Russian 'treasury' of 480 billion 'petrodollars' (that's the third 'treasury' in the modern world: China has more than 1500 billion dollars, and Japan has more than 900 billions).
- So, I can't understand, - where the reason for Russia to economy such a small sums on it's national security, when (for example) - Russian goverment invested recently more than 5 million dollars into the 20-teraflop supercomputer, - practically, just for 'student education' at provincial Ufa Aviation Institute...
'Where is the logic?' / (c) Pavel Podvig
Russian:
>- Pavel, I, too, may give to you a good advice - please read this:
This is exactly my point - "don't read Bolshevik newspapers". I must say that there is a certain charm in your Nashi-variety enthusiasm, but it stops being interesting after a while.
> This is exactly my point - "don't read Bolshevik newspapers".
- Pavel, but Pravda.Ru is not a 'Bolshevik newspaper'! Rather, it's a critical to communists resource (may be even anticommunist one, - just my opinion)...
> I must say that there is a certain charm in your Nashi-variety enthusiasm...
- Pavel, you're wrong again. I really don't like 'Nashists' (and, by the way, - yesterday a good news appear that official Kremlin seems to refuse from their 'services'):
http://top.rbc.ru/politics/29/01/2008/137053.shtml?print
- I do believe that an alternative point of view must always exist, in the frameworks of civilized pluralism, - поскольку чрезмерно единообразная и политически ангажированная агитация, всегда приводит к появлению кривобоких идеологичесских уродцев.
Вспомните СССР.
Question about the TOPOL-M mobile launchers:
Is there and does anyone know what the policy is on how often they relocate?
Rich: There is no limit on how often mobile missiles can relocate. They are normally supposed to stay within a fairly large "deployment area" specified in the treaty, but can occasionally go on "operational dispersals" beyond that.
Pavel: Thanks, but do you know what they actually do? I mean do they move every day, week, month etc...or do they stay in a spot but have the potential of moving if need be. I was wondering what the potential of the U.S. locating them via satellite, then targeting them in a first strike.
As I understand, they change positions from time to time. It's quite difficult to detect them with optical reconnaissance satellites, although radars (Lacrosse) can do better.
Pavel:
[…They are normally supposed to stay within a fairly large "deployment area" specified in the treaty…]
On the SS-25s, is the referred to treaty START?
Frank Shuler
USA
> It's quite difficult to detect them with optical reconnaissance satellites, although radars (Lacrosse) can do better.
- Inflatable metallized 'Topol TEL dummy' should be a enough and cheap contr-measure to Lacrosse.
Supposedly, the Topol-m TEL have improved countermeasures against radar-detection from space respecto to Topol TEL.
I don’t know these countermeasures.