Thing is, even if they could be seen from space it doesn't mean they're going to be in the same location when the warhead gets there. Consider the proposition of trying to take them out. All of your shooters would have to have their targeting data updated in realtime. If Russia decided to switch to a hardened launcher like Midgetman had it would be all the more difficult. Additionally, if they don't have to fire from pre-surveyed sites that could give them even more flexibility. If it were me I'd deploy the RS-24 with a single warhead and the best/most decoys I could fit on the thing.

Why not more warheads instead of decoys? Cost?

> Since the deployment may begin before the START Treaty expires in December 2009, this most likely means that Russia has found a way to declare RS-24 as a new missile.

- That's was EXACTLY my point since my earlier post.

But you was always critical to this idea.

It's not a problem to change some missile parameters by 5 - 10 %, as Treaty requires; as I wrote earlier, there's no need for Russia to play double games with dirty tricks, - contrary, Russian Federation is interested to show herself as a good and reliable partner.

Quote: this most likely means that Russia has found a way to declare RS-24 as a new missile.

May be there is a simpler explanation: The RS-24 IS a new missile according the START coding. True, it uses many Topol-M components but this doesn’t means that is the same missile. No one can prove that it is the same missile but just MIRVed.

Solomonov seems confident that RS-24 would be regarded as a new missile. Rocket Forces commander also said that flights test would be completed by 2008. That means RS-24 could be deployed in 2009. But the question is how RS-24 is different from Topol-M? Does anyone have exact idea about that? What START data say? What is the latest specification of RS-24?

Attention!
Not "will be operationally deployed in 2009", only "transfered to RVSN" for test.
It will be only next stage of test programme.

Alexander: This is an interesting point. However, Solomonov did not say that the missile will be transferred to RVSN "for tests". He specifically said that "joint tests" (совместные испытания) will be over by the end of 2008. As I understand, after "joint tests" are done there is nothing more to test. The missile may be deployed "in experimental mode" but it would be operational deployment nonetheless.

Parimal Debnath: Follow the links in the post - you'll most definitely find answers to your questions.

How much you want to bet that when they are "(non)-deployed in experimental mode" that it will be to the newly declared test range at Yur'ya - so that the US side can't do an RVOSI on it while START is in force?

That's an interesting thought. But I don't think Russia needs to hide RS-24 from inspections. The difference, if there is one, between RS-24 and Topol-M would be in throw weight.

Well, if there are differences in throw weight, then RS-24 is a new missile because of some changes in the solid fuel. I also will not discard minor changes in stage dimensions. I.e. the TEL is declared as different form the Topol-M TEL, Solomonov claim that RS-24 is different, and then the most likely explanation is… “is a different missile!!”. I can’t understand why is so difficult to accept this.

> But the question is how RS-24 is different from Topol-M?
> The difference, if there is one, between RS-24 and Topol-M would be in throw weight.

- I'll try to predict some differences between Topol-M and RS-24:

(a) Throwweigh (+25 % at least for RS-24)
(b) Length of the 1st stage (-5 % at least for RS-24)
(c) Length of the 2nd stage (+10 % or so for RS-24)
(d) Length of the bus (+19 % approx. for RS-24)

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/3396/tmrsvw7.png

Predictions based on the pic above and Treaty restrictions.

Thanks Pavel. What about the throw weight of RS-24?

RS-24 throw weight hasn't been declared yet. My guess is that it will be about 1250 kg, which would be enough for RS-24 to be considered a new missile for START purposes.

I seriously doubt there will be any changes in dimensions, TEL, or anything else. But we will see.

It’s amazing what a “non event” this is in America. Is the RS-24 START compliant? New system? Old system modified? Exactly, how many warheads? Yields? No one here seems to care. You would think Russia adding a new nuclear missile system would get some general press here. It hasn’t.

I guess this is a sign of the changing times.

Frank Shuler
USA

> My guess is that it will be about 1250 kg

- My estimation is from 1500 to 2000 kg.

Frank, America doesn't bother RS-24. America will react if and only if Russia could produce a new heavy liquid fuel ICBM as speculate.

If the throw weight is about 1250 kg then Bulava type warhead (100 kt) is the only viable option. I think it's too small for a land based ICBM.

Parimal Debnath

You miss my point. I’m sure someone at the Pentagon cares but the average American citizen does not. The reason there is so much general apathy here on this issue is that America no longer sees Russia as an enemy. The average American is no more interested in the RS-24, or any Russian ICBM for that matter, than they are in the latest French SLBM. It’s just not relevant.

What would it take to move American public opinion back to the old days when Russia was viewed as an “enemy”?

Interesting question.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank, I am not sure if American govt. really sees Russia as its true friend. If that is the case then America would lift all the trade embargoes on Russia. America doesn't build military presence around Russia, doesn't build ABM system in Europe. And America would work to disband NATO and no question of bringing Ex Soviet states into NATO. I think there is big difference between thinking of general public and military.

However, I still believe America and Russia could become good friends and work together for a peaceful world. But for that sense of trust must be established between two countries first. Military alliance should be disbanded. There is no need of NATO at present day world security scenario. Building army to counter Iran threat is nothing but a laughable childish logic. If the only superpower fears Iran then what will be the case for Israel!

P.S. NY Times reports: Israel is preparing for a assault on Iran. Don't you think Israel is enough to counter Iran?

P.P.S. How about the latest French SLBM? I don't know much about that! Can you give some lights on it?

Parimal Debnath

NATO today is a much different organization than the old adversary to the Warsaw Pack was in years past. NATO is no longer a mutual defense organization but has evolved into a global security organization whose interest and scope is much greater than Europe alone. For example, one day I can see nations such as India, Australia, Singapore, or Japan as members of NATO. I also see Russia as a future NATO member; the lure of EU economic integration and rise of China in the next 30 years will provide the reason. The only thing that is obsolete about NATO is the name itself. Perhaps the North Atlantic Treaty Organization needs to be renamed the “Global Defense Alliance” (GDA)?

While I don’t see Russia as an enemy of the United States, I do see her as an adversary. There will always be issues we agree on and others where we disagree. However one thing is clear to me, there is no single issue between Russia and the United States today that is worth a war. It’s just that simple.

I think the United States distrust of Iran goes back to 1979 and the seizure of our embassy. Any nation we don’t “speak to” diplomatically that has nuclear weapons concerns the United States. There is “bad blood” between the US and Iran and I consider the likelihood of military conflict there high. Can Israel alone take Tehran? Perhaps, but not without American support and once that war begins it is going to be long and bloody. The destruction of certain nuclear complexes and industrial targets in an Israeli air strike on the Persians would only be the first salvo in such a war. This war is my greatest fear because the outcome is so unpredictable. Many of the weapon systems the US are developing today are to counter such a threat by an Iran-type country in the future. Where will the Iranians be technically in twenty years? Remember it will be twenty years before the American GBI system has the satellites and command & control structures in place to be an effective defense system (effective is relative). Today, the GBI system hasn’t even been tested against a missile with simple decoys. The American ABM effort is just getting started.

The French M51 is the successor to the M45 class SLBM and is now being loaded on the “Le Triomphant” class submarines. It seems to be a successful design that has progressed through testing and evaluation in a timely manner without any significant issues. The French Navy is procuring three sets of missiles, sixteen per submarine, armed with six warheads (TN75) each for the “Le Triomphant” class. The forth submarine of the class is always assumed to be in refit and no missiles are provided for that submarine.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank:

Re: the lack of concern with the RS-24 I think it has to do with MSM not talking about it really and the general public being tired of the war. Then you have the media's Golden Boy claiming he's going to scrap "unproven missile defense®" and if the media started talking about the new Russian ICBM. . .well, we can't have THAT fly in the soup. For the most part though the public in general doesn't think further than "USSR collapsed, all threat gone" and the media has only fostered that perception. Anytime you see someone talking about funding the big ticket items that's "Cold War Mentality" or it's "a Cold War Weapon" as if all foreign military forces have evaporated. The level of voluntary blindness is downright stupifying. (Okay, end of rant :-) )

Scott Ferrin:

Did you not hear that it was "a [Cold] War to end all [cold] wars?" :)

Here are some links regarding the M51:

http://www.astrium.eads.net/families/a-safer-world/missiles/m-51
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/france/m-5.htm
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/France_Tests_Ballistic_Missile_For_Nuclear_Deployment_999.html
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/France_Test_Launches_Sea_Based_Strategic_Missile_999.html

Thanks Frank. But even GDA type alliance is not necessary at all. Both the US and Russia should work for a conflict/war free world. I think cold war type mentality should be buried as early as possible. If a sense trust is established between two then many problems can be solved without military intervention. Being a lone superpower America should take the initiatives, take the responsibility for a peaceful world. You can attack a weak country, destroy its army, its leadership but you can't win the heart of the public of that country. I think terrorism is the only real threat for the world at this moment. And all should work together to get rid of these evil forces. For that, root cause of terrorism should be traced out first and then act accordingly. Military intervention alone cannot solve this problem and who knows it can create more terrorists!

Martin

One of the big differences between the M45 and M51 package is not the warheads but the ability to use the TN-75s in different ways. I read somewhere that the new M51 would be capable for the first time in French SLBM development to deliver an EMP strike. This would suggest to me the RV for the M51 would be able to deploy its six warheads with greater independent flexibility than in the earlier M45 missile. A new warhead to succeed the TN-75 was in development (maybe the TN-100?) but that project was canceled as unnecessary. So, the real advantage to the M51 may not only be range increase but also mission flexibility.

Frank Shuler
USA

Parimal Debnath

Only if all the world’s nations surrendered their sovereignty to an international organization such as the United Nations could such a noble pursuit be possible. Then terrorism could be treated as a crime and dealt with in terms of police law enforcement and prosecuted in courts of justice. In a world without borders, wealth would flow to natural markets and all people would benefit equally from the distribution of goods and services. Wealth would follow opportunity to generate new wealth. In this model, citizens could live is a world free to worship their own gods, speak their own languages, and educate their children. There would be one currency and no passports. People could travel without restrictions or limits. Health care would be universal and available to all. Topol-M or Trident D-5s would not be needed.

Impossible? Regreatfully, yes.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank: Thanks for the information. Another question: Do you think/know that the Trident D-5 was ever deployed with 10 W-88? Assuming a mass of 350 kg per warhead it would mean that the missile has a throughweight of at least 3.5t, which seems to be very high for a 60 t missile. Do you know something about that?

Martin

Interesting question. My memory is that the original Trident testing with the Mark 4 RV provided for a payload of twelve W-76 warheads and the system was tested with such. The military decision was made to reduce the number of warheads on Trident C4 to eight to provide greater range and mission flexibility, remembering the 100 kt W-76-0 was only an air burst weapon. START confirmed the eight warhead payload. The Trident D-5 was also tested with twelve warheads but deployed with only eight due to START. SORT farther reduced the number of warheads to four or five and the United States has reached SORT compliance today ahead of the 2012 treaty deadline. It has always been speculated that a Trident missile could only have one type of warhead mounted in the Mark 4 (C-4) or the Mark 5 (D-5) RV, either W-76s or the more powerful W-88. It was technically impossible to mount a mix of both warheads. To directly answer your question, I don’t think Trident ever deployed with ten W-88 warheads but I do think it was technically possible to have deployed with twelve. Impressive load characteristics for this class of missile.

The W-76 is being updated to the new W-76-1 standard which will reduce the yield to 60 kts and provide GPS accuracy and the ability to ground strike for the first time. The W-88 is in active maintenance at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Inventories of these warheads, post SORT, and are expected to number 2000 W-76-1 and 400 W-88s.

Frank Shuler
USA

The U.N. is not an intergovernmental power structure. It's an assembly of diplomatic representatives each working in the interest of their nation. It's not free of corruption, petty politics, or outright conflict.

Thanks Frank, your better than google could ever be.

With mobile MIRVed missiles you’re better off with minimal warheads and more launchers. Dont confuse MIRV with MARV. The idea behind the MIRV is that you dont need a 15meg warhead to take out a target, you only need 2 to 4 100k warheads. MIRVs are basically bombs that are catapulted (hurled) after mid-flight and before atmospheric re-entry. By their nature you typically need only 2-4 warheads per missile. Though you can pack a lot of them in one missile, its almost always a waste to do so. I believe the total warhead compliment carried in each Trident submarine is 96, or about 4 warheads per missile.
Forget what you read in Readers Digest. For a TYPICAL scenario, a MIRVed missile is aimed at one (1) target. One mathematical cone of re-entry (target). Occasionally a target might be a broad one (i.e. New York, Moscow, or Beijing) where several warheads are wanted, but out of all available targets, those broad ones will be few and far between. Solomonov is correct: More missiles mean more targets, and more chances of survival in any counterforce attack.

Doggone

Land based MIRVed missile systems also become priority targets as well. Launch ‘em or lose ‘em. Single warhead missiles provide the greatest deterrent because they are not first-strike weapons and yet provide a powerful counter-force. It is that counter-force ability that discerns an attack. How much destruction is a nation able to absorb in “victory”?

A health mix of single warhead silo missiles and road (or rail) ICBMs provides the perfect deterrent in the case of Russia or China. Or, the United States.

Frank Shuler
USA

It’s the Theater of Operation that determines whether a single warhead missile is viable in a first strike, not the number of warheads on the missile. The Israelis are thought to have a couple hundred single tipped nuclear missiles in their possession. If the scenario dictated, they’d use such in a first strike.
Examining the recent past: The US and NATO never agreed to ‘not use’ nuclear weapons in a conflict with the Warsaw Pact, and never agreed ‘not to’ use them first. In a Cold War type scenario, NATO and/or Warsaw would have had a greater number of single warhead missiles than multiple. They’d be short and medium range missiles, of course, but many would be nuclear tipped and in a first strike they would have been used to an immense degree. The typical newspaper article would have you to believe that a ‘first strike’ sequence would be the launching of hundreds of huge and heavy missiles with multiple warheads (easily detected by enemy satellite monitors and over-the-horizon radars). The fact is: In a ‘First Strike’ preparation, thousands of single tipped nuclear medium, short, and (esp) cruise missiles would be set up and given targets. They’d be launched near the ToO, and would be on target in a very few minutes (seconds for some targets). This would happen while the heavy ICBMs were still in early boost phase.
These 2 reasons (NATO’s refusal to rule out first use of nuclear weapons, and 7 undetectable minutes to a crippling devastation) is why Russia, based on Russian Generals’ speeches, cannot accept even 10 ABMs being put on Czech or Polish territory. After such a first strike, 10 ABMs may easily be all that’s needed to protect the West from retaliation (Russian words, not mine).

SS-25 regiments in Bologoe, Tver region, will be rearmed on 'new missile complexes', RVSN chief commander gen-col. Nikolay Solovtsov said today:

http://news.mail.ru/politics/1878141/print/

According to Nikolay Solovtsov, 'some other regiments of RVSN has started their preparations on 'Topol-M' rearmament', too.

So, it seems we are at the edge of 'Topol-M' mass deployment.

The US needed several shorter range cruise missiles and Persings, because they had bases at the enemy’s door. The Russians needed several long-range missiles because their arm had to stretch across an ocean and the North Pole.
The U.S. and NATO still holds onto a ‘first strike’ option even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and Russia is still intent on tagging someone as an enemy even when one doesn’t exist….. So, after all this time, who blinks first..??