The Strategic Rocket Forces announced today that they plan to deploy 11 new Topol-M missiles by the end of 2008. The commander of the Rocket Forces General Nikolai Solovtsov was quoted as saying at a press-conference that his service will not only complete the deployment of the fifth missile regiment in Tatishchevo, which was planned before, but will also start deployment of the sixth regiment there. Or maybe it won't.
Earlier plans did not mention the sixth regiment in 2008 and the past deployment patterns - silo-based Topol-Ms are deployed in pairs or in fours - suggest that there will be only two silo-based Topol-Ms in 2008. Completing the fifth regiment will take two missiles, so the remaining nine are most likely to be mobile missiles that will go to Teykovo.
According to Solovtsov, the division in Teykovo will complete deployment of the first mobile Topol-M regiment (this will take three additional missiles) and will begin deployment of the second one - this will take three or six Topol-Ms. My guess it will be six.
If everything goes according to the plan, the Strategic Rocket Forces will bring the number of deployed Topol-M missiles will reach 65 by the end of 2008.
The book
Comments
Hopefully MDB will release the '08 defense procurement with budget figures in their next issue and we can take a look at how many Topol's are being deployed, though this seems perfectly consistent, given that 7 were purchased last year and 11 would not be an out-of-bounds number. However if Sineva procurement doesn't go down (or even goes up) then we're looking at another post-Soviet record in nuclear weapon purchases.
By the way, Anatoly Zak has published a picture of 'Topol-M' interior at his RussianSpaceWeb site:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/topolm_interior_1.jpg
- But I can't say exactly is this 3D rendering a 'real' Topol-M interior or just Anatoly's fantasies...
Pavel, I am sorry for double-posting.
Feanor,
While this is not the breakdown you want, this article shows a decent view of the categories where the money is going:
http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/cooper2007
Thanks, but I've already seen that. I was talking about a breakdown of all the expediture categories for procurement and modernization programs. Moscow Defense Brief released figures of the sort for 2007 here: http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/2-2007/item1/item2/
Sorry for the double post, but it seems that АРМС-ТАСС has confirmed the 11 Topol-M deployments.
http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=51761&cid=25
- It could be interesting to compare two statements of Gen. Nikolay Solovtsov, - of December 17, 2007 and of February 27, 2008:
(a) December 17, 2007:
'After 2009, the RSF will receive 12 - 14 Topol-M ICBMs every year'.
(In Russian: "После 2009 года в РВСН начнётся поставка 12 - 14 ракетных комплексов "Тополь-М" в год").
(b) February 27, 2008:
'[In 2008] the RSF will receive 11 up-to-date Topol-M ICBMs in two versions [silo and mobile-launched]. At present, RSF get 3 mobile-launched Topol-Ms and 3 - 4 silo-launched ones every year; AFTER 2009 - 2010, THESE NUMBERS WILL BE DOUBLED'.
(In Russian: "Тем самым, группировка РВСН должна пополниться одиннадцатью современными МБР "Тополь-М" в двух вариантах базирования. Ежегодно, мы ставим на боевое дежурство три пусковых установки мобильного комплекса "Тополь-М" и три - четыре шахтных пусковых установки этого типа. После 2009 - 2010 гг., эти показатели удвоятся").
- From Solovtsov's words, we can make an attempt to prognose 'Topol-M' yearly production in the nearest years:
2007: 7 (4 silo + 3 mobile)
2008: 11 (5 silo + 6 mobile)
2009: 9 - 12
2010: 9 - 14
2011: 12 - 14 (6 - 8 silo + 6 mobile)
More aggressive and militaristic moves by the Kremlin? New nukes to sit around and rust in the hinterlands of Siberia for the next 30 years?
Why do posts like this get played down so much, yet when the U.S. shoots down a junked satellite it creates an uproar with Pavel dissecting and scrutinizing every mundane detail?
I can't wait to hear Pavel or some other "expert" comment about what the launch officer had for breakfast or the environmental impact of the test (which Im sure will be pitched by Al Gore).
Why doesn't an announcement like this receive equal criticism. I guess its okay for the Sovi--err Russia to deloy Topol ICBMs that can kill millions.
Who/what is their focus? Pretty easy to surmise that.
Come on Pavel, where is your criticism of this announcement?
I suppose its okay for "Mother Russia" to get a pass since the U.S. is establishing a ABM system?
> Why doesn't an announcement like this receive equal criticism.
> I guess its okay for the Sovi--err Russia to deloy Topol ICBMs that can kill millions.
- Anonymous, - there's no difference between SS-25 'Topol' already deployed in 213 missiles score, and SS-27 'Topol-M' that will be deployed, only as a replacement for 'rusty' SS-25, - in a score of 210 - 220 missiles till 2020.
- In fact, ONE SS-27 Topol-M with single 550-kt warhead, - will replace ONE SS-25 Topol with single 550-kt warhead.
- It's 'ONE for ONE' replace, - and where is the ground for hysteria?
"anonymous";
Th US is the one making militaristic and agressive moves, while Russia is one of the few countries in the world with not only the ability, but the will to stand up to illegal NATO expansion eastward which is led by the US. Oh, and the reliable replacement warhead under development and slated for production in the US is not capable of killing tens of millions? And as I recall, the Bush administration is the one seeking to find ways to actually USE nuclear weapons in "limited war" against "terrorists" or in other "tactical" situations? I may be from the US, but I can still call an apple for what it is, an apple; and imperialism for what it is, imperialism.
Acute russo-phobia and ignorance is always grounds for hysteria. ;)
Jon Grams, Feanor: thank you for understanding.
Russian, a quick question, are you actually Russian and do you speak the language fluently? Sorry if this was asked before or is obvious from previous posts, I'm new here.
> Russian, a quick question, are you actually Russian and do you speak the language fluently?
- Yes, I am a native Russian and I write to this blog right from the heart of 'Mother Russia', - from Kazan city, Middle Volga region.
My English is not so fluent as my Russian, as you can see... ;-)
Its not hysteria, its exposing hypocracy. The U.S. shoots down a defunct satellite and this board treats it akin to an act of war. Russia continues to deploy new ICBMs (replacing older ones whatever) and it gets a big yawn. If the U.S. came out and said it was going to begin replacing its MM ICBMs with Peacekeepers I would hate to think what this board's reaction would be.
Feanor- Russo-phobe and ignorance? Ive been to Russia (enjoyed my visit) and I have 2 Masters Degrees in National Security, thank you. Surely you can do better than resorting to name-calling?
Jon
"Th US is the one making militaristic and agressive moves, while Russia is one of the few countries in the world with not only the ability, but the will to stand up to illegal NATO expansion eastward which is led by the US."
How has Russia stood up to the U.S.? If it has I've failed to see any success.
How is it illegal for sovereign nations to freely decide if they want to join in an alliance with other nations? Would you say the same about the SCO? Then again, I guess its okay for Russia and China, but not the U.S.? Do you consider the EU as some horrible German-Franco imperialistic attempt to dominate Eurpe?
"Oh, and the reliable replacement warhead under development and slated for production in the US is not capable of killing tens of millions?"
The U.S. has done far more to reduce its arsenal than Russia or China. Upgrading to more accurate warheads is not the same as deploying new weapon systems. Again, Russia deploys new ICBMs and it gets a pass. U.S. blow up a defunct satellite and its time to bash the USA.
"And as I recall, the Bush administration is the one seeking to find ways to actually USE nuclear weapons in "limited war" against "terrorists" or in other "tactical" situations? I may be from the US, but I can still call an apple for what it is, an apple; and imperialism for what it is, imperialism"
Russia has tactical nukes (or at least "had" since they claimed they can't account for them). The U.S. has had them for years and purposefully remains ambiguous about under what conditions it might use them.
You might be able to fill a book with what you know about apples, but you don't know the first thing about imperialism. I have a suggestion, lay off the Seymour Hersh, Chalmers Johnson and Noam Chomsky.
Anonymous
If Russia doesn't build new ICBM's, it will not be able to maintain any sort of strategic balance with the US as older systems are forced to retire from sheer old age.
Russia is standing up to the US in fighting the deployment of the ABM system in CZ and poland. There is no point for such a system other than to attempt to undermine Russia's strategic deterrent, and make it look like the billions spent on ABM research wasn't a waste (and open up eastern europe to American capitalism). Anyone who believes Iran would launch a nuclear armed IRBM at Europe has a complete lack of understanding about nuclear warfare. Do you honestly belive that NATO would not retaliate with nuclear weapons, and that Iran is ignorant of this?
NATO and the USSR/Russia agreed during the signing of the "four part treaty" that NATO would not expand any further than its boundaries in 1990. Also, an alliance is one thing, military expansion is another.
So I take it you would not be bothered if Russia made an agreement with Canada to install an ABM system on the border just north of the Minuteman III silos near Grand Forks? Or in Cuba? (to ostensibly protect itself from North Korean or Chinese ICBM's?)
The history of British and US imperialism is my field of study in college. I am also aware that there is a hard core of people in the US who, no matter what facts you present, will continue to believe that the US only means to do good, and almost always does good in the world, and that it is the "beacon of liberty and freedom". I suggest you could learn a thing or two from Johnson and Chomsky.
> The U.S. shoots down a defunct satellite and this board treats it akin to an act of war.
- Rather, - as 'an act of new weapon race'. Just because all these new US military programs (like NMD, weapons on new physical principles, ASAT and space-based weapons), - only starts a new game.
A GAME WITHOUT RULES because there's no international treaties to regulate it.
US still refuse such a regulation, - and this is a real danger.
> Russia continues to deploy new ICBMs (replacing older ones whatever) and it gets a big yawn.
- Again:
(a) no difference between SS-25 and SS-27 in 'killing ability': both have 550-kt warhead.
(b) one SS-27 will replace one SS-25. SS-25 stays for 23 - 25 years, WITHOUT any modification... Do you really think that SS-25s will serve eternally? :-)
(c) the ONLY difference between SS-27 and SS-25, - it's in fact, improved ability of SS-27 to penetrate NMD shield: fast start (shortened to 3 min. boost phase theoretically can help to avoid hitting a missile from ABL aircraft) and mysterious 'hypersonic glide' warhead with 'highly unpredictable' trajectory (that's, again theoretically, can help to avoid hitting a warhead by GBI interceptor).
In other words, - SS-27 Topol-M is a FORCED answer of Russia to the US NMD program.
The Russian nuclear arsenal has dropped dramatically since the end of the Cold War. From around 28 000 nuclear weapons (according to heritage foundation http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG853.cfm) to around 4000 right now (according to this very site). Has America done anything of the sort? Morever even now as new missiles are being built, the Russian nuclear arsenal is decreasing in size.
I, personally, have not treated the shoot down of the US sattelite as an act of war, though the USA almost had a hissy fit when China did something of the sort earlier. However it is a clear signal that the USA intends to continue to develop ASAT systems, and potentially space based weapons. Now if you're going to go cry about the miniscule replacement rate of Russian ICBM's as being a new global arms race, rebuilding the "evil empire" and so on and so forth, I can only classify that as paranoia. Considering current production levels aren't even enough to replenish the existing (tiny) arsenal, I hardly see any justification for your vicious response.
Russian привет. Я тоже русский, сейчас живу в Америке, но вообще из Воронежа.
> Russian привет. Я тоже русский, сейчас живу в Америке, но вообще из Воронежа.
- Также приветствую. Эк куды ж Вас занесло... :-) Однако, Павел не приветствует общения на русском в англоязычной ветке форума, так что я благоразумно закругляюсь... ;-)
Если что, продолжить можем здесь:
http://russianforces.org/rus/
Jon Gram
You failed to differentiate between imperialism and soveriegn nations deciding to join in an alliance with other like-minded nations. Once you do that then I will entertain your ridiculous hypothetical scenario of Russia's ABM deployment to Canada.
Regarding Iran, you are mirror imaging your western values on to them. We do this all the time to other cultures. It doesn't usually work.
I've read Chomsky and Johnson and quite frankly I just didn't buy what they were selling.
Feanor,
No doubt that their arsenal has been reduced...we helped to reduce it. How many new ICBMs will the U.S. deploy in 2008? None. Its not paranoia on my part. Russia is the one paranoid, and over what? A limited NMD system that it could easily overwhelm. Do you think the U.S. really fears a Russian nuclear attack?
Russian,
So if the U.S. scrapped its NMD system, Russia would scrap the SS-27? I doubt that. Again, feel free to waste money on new ICBMs that in 30 years will be rotting scraps of metal in Siberia. Seems to me that Russians are very afraid of the U.S. (for whatever reason)But the sentiment is not mutual I assure you.
> So if the U.S. scrapped its NMD system, Russia would scrap the SS-27? I doubt that.
- Contrary, we doubt that US will scrap it's NMD... That's why SS-27 will stay at service. ;-)
> Again, feel free to waste money on new ICBMs that in 30 years will be rotting scraps of metal in Siberia.
- We will surely follow to your good advice. But, I honestly must said that you really need to learn more about modern missile technologies, before writing here a nonsense like 'ICBMs that in 30 years will be rotting scraps of metal in Siberia' :-)
In fact, there's a very little METAL in the modern Russian ICBMs - most of their constructive mass is up-to-date non-metal materials, - like, for example, carbon monothread. Stored for years in hermetic transport&launch containers, in the inner atmosphere of pure inert gas (nitrogen), under a little bit raised, relatively to external environment, inert gas pressure, - such a missiles will surely stay in a 'good health' for 20 - 25 years.
SS-25 has proved it. SS-27 should be even better... ;-)
> How many new ICBMs will the U.S. deploy in 2008? None. Its not paranoia on my part.
- If it's not a paranoia, - it's just an ignorance... You should to learn more about US programs on permanent modernization of Minutman IIIs and Trident IIs, - in fact, it's changes of MOST parts of US ICBMs / SLBMs in a score of 20 - 30 missiles per year.
- In other words, US is not 'deploy new ICBMs' every year, - but, instead of it, US permanently REPLACE significant missile parts to the brand new ones... As example, - replace 1st, 2nd and 3rd stages on 20 - 30 MM3s every year, to the refurbished or brand new, freshly manufactured stages.
- Also, do not forget about MASS programms of permanent modernization of MM3s command and control system, navigation system and so on... Only ONE of these mass programs - transfer to MM3s a navigation system from LGM-118A 'Peacekeeper', - has made MM3s the most precision ICBM in the world, with near (90 - 120) metres CEP.
So MM3s - are they 'OLD' or 'BRAND NEW'?
A rhetoric question, isn't it? :-)
It is the US which is always in the process of developing new and more dangerous weapons of a variety that is mind boggling to say the least. Its micro-wave weapons, drones at more than 1600 miles distance used in Afghanistan that have stealth capabilities in addition to a variety of possibilities, its present program of development of artificial beatles in hordes that will have the capabilities of entering other countries in spy missions and controlled from their base with the ability to deliver miniature weapons etc. etc. There is no end to this list. The world would have been a safer place without all those laboratories there that are only meant for thinking out new horrors of subjecting human race to inhuman treatment all because the US wants to dictate to every single human being in the world today. What Russia is engaged in is just peanuts in comparison! and only meant to protect itself from US or the terrorists like Al Qaeda that US trained and helped to subvert Russia in Afghanistan.