I would suggest the deployment of the RS-24 in silos is a very big deal. I suspect the deployment of new MIRV silo ballistic missiles, as the old SS-18 and ‘19s end their service life, will guarantee an American response. Minuteman will be replaced; something not universally thought would happen in the Pentagon today.

Frank Shuler
USA

Any info on numbers planned?

Feanor

Strictly my opinion:

I would think the minimum number of new replacement ICBMs would be 150; perhaps 300 is a better guess. That would provide for a force of 100 at each of the three American bases that now support Minuteman IIIs. I don’t see any of the existing Air Force ICBM bases being closed in the future. A more interesting question is how many warheads these new missiles will deploy with. I guess that is up to Russia too.

Frank Shuler
USA

And how many warheads? 3 or 6?

Kolokol

Only speculation on my part.

I think there are several variables; one, of course, is Russia’s capabilities and the second, obviously, is China. It has been widely assumed here that the successor to Minuteman, if needed at all, would be a small, single-warhead silo missile and housed in the very same silos that the Minuteman III fleet now reside. That might change if a “heavy” missile like the Peacekeeper was built or if a mobile component to the land-based US nuclear deterrent was deemed needed. My opinion is that the USAF considers ICBMs “dinosaurs” and would far prefer to spend its monies on conventional weapon systems that actually might be used in combat. However, new Russian MIRV silo missiles would be hard for the Pentagon, and Congress, to ignore.

Frank Shuler
USA

I don't know why silo-based MIRV ICBMs are such a big deal to Americans. After all, SLBMs these days are probably just as accurate, and can be literally fired from anywhere, with depressed trajectories and even have greater throw weight than these piddly Topols. Silos nowdays are vulnerable even to conventional PGMs.

So?

So... (forgive my pun) why would Russia with all the expanses of Siberia, put any ballistic missiles, much less MIRV weapons, in silos?

I suspect it’s is because silo missiles are the most accurate when striking silo missiles. They are the best first strike weapons...

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler:

Silo basing is cheaper? Most of the US deterrent is at sea anyway. Personally, I think land-based ICBMs are a dumb idea. It's just this way, they can deflect attention from the failures of the SLBM program. Silos can be installed a handful at a time, which, while not looking threatening on the world stage, gives the patriotic crowd at home the illusion of continuous rearmament, when the reality is quite pathetic. Every new silo deployment is a (domestic) news item. OTOH, launching a sub with only a handful of missiles will not fool even the domestic TV audience. It's also easier to steal budget money this way.

So?

Silo basing is certainly cheaper if you’re using existing silos as Russia is today with the SS-27 fleet; and I suspect will be in the case with the new RS-24s. I doubt there will be any new Russian silo construction anytime soon. Land-based ICBMs are certainly less expensive than the SLBM option. Ballistic missile technology at sea is just a far more complicated, and thus expensive, alternative to nuclear deterrence. Think of it this way, the new “Yury Dolgoruky” will deploy with 16 Bulava missiles that can carry 96 warheads. Average patrol rates of Russian strategic submarines are two, 30-day patrols per year. So, these weapons are available to the Kremlin 16.66% of the year while 96 silo or road-mobile SS-27s have perhaps a 90% operational rate in the same time period. Perhaps the “Yury Dolgoruky” can still launch her missiles at port in a national emergency but this is highly problematic. A “boomer” in port is not an asset but rather a target. Nuclear ballistic missile submarines are a tremendous resource for deterrence but a very expensive platform to afford. Today, if Russia wants to maintain and enhance its nuclear deterrence, I would fill up the silos with the SS-27 and build as many mobile single-warhead SS-27s as I could. This strategy provides the most affordable, and most effective, nuclear deterrence possible for Moscow.

Russia is no safer or more “powerful” with 10,000 nuclear warheads than she is with 1,000.

And, I completely agree. The military-industrial-complex is alive and well in both Russia and the United States. Nuclear weapons are no longer military but political weapons.

Frank Shuler
USA

Hehe. I was misunderstood. My question was in response to the original item. Does anyone have any idea on numbers of RS-24 to be deployed next year?

Feanor

I wonder too if the rate of Russian ICBM deployment will change in the future. If not, I guess we can assume the normal annual production/deployment of, say, eight?

Frank Shuler
USA

8 missiles next year?

Feanor

Just a guess but based on the recent history of Russian ICBM deployments, eight sounds right. With the stated goal of introducing the RS-24 in 2009, the question is how many different ICBMs will Russia continue to produce? Will the RS-24 supersede the “standard” SS-27 in production? Or better put, will the RS-24 replace both the silo SS-27 and the road mobile SS-27s as well?

And back to the central question, will Russia increase ICBM production?

Frank Shuler
USA