The Rocket Forces added a new battalion of three RS-24 Yars missiles to the missile division in Teykovo. Together with the first full RS-24 regiment that began combat duty in August 2011, this brings the total number of RS-24 missiles to 12 missiles. One more battalion is expected to be deployed in the remaining days of 2011, which means that by the end of the year Russia will have 15 operational RS-24 missiles.
According to the Rocket Forces, deployment of the second RS-24 regiment in Teykovo will be completed in 2012 (so, the number of RS-24 missiles there will reach 18). Also, the Rocket Forces will begin deployment of mobile RS-24 in Novosibirsk and silo-based RS-24 missiles in Kozelsk.
The information about new missile deployment in Kozelsk was first made public in August 2011 (the decision to keep the division was made much earlier, in 2008; an option of silo-based RS-24 was also mentioned at the time). Now it is confirmed that the Kozelsk division will have multiple-warhead RS-24.
In the same report, the Rocket Forces confirmed that deployment of single-warhead Topol-M missiles will be completed in 2012, after the sixth regiment in Tatishchevo is fully equipped. Four missiles will be added to the 52 silo-based Topol-Ms deployed there by the end of 2011 and four more - by the end of 2012. Deployment of road-mobile Topol-M missiles was discontinued in 2010.
The book
Comments
I wonder if the Kremlin’s plan to silo-based RS-24 missiles in Kozelsk will change the American defense posture? I have always thought new MIRV silo missiles (post SS-18s and 19s) would do so. Would this policy decision persuade the Pentagon to build a new ICBM when Minuteman goes away? Up to recently, I thought Washington might even forgo a new Trident replacement and base the future, post-2030, nuclear deterrent on a land based system. However, it seems today at least the Pentagon favors a Trident replacement over Minuteman.
One thing had seemed certain, only one nuclear system, either a new ICBM or a new sea-based Trident replacement would be built. The US Air Force is ambivalent at best to a new nuclear Minuteman III replacement; certainly if its funding is at the expense of a new manned bomber. The USAF is all giddy over the “global strike mission” and little else; it just wants to invest its defense budgets into weapon systems that actually will be used in combat. I thought this debate would happen only, and if, the Russians actually built and deployed the new “heavy, liquid fueled” ICBM which would, of course, have multiple nuclear warheads. Will RS-24s going into the ground at Kozelsk start this debate on American’s future nuclear deterrent sooner than later? Perhaps.
Frank Shuler
USA
Hopefully, USAF nuclear forces go gentle into that good night within the decade. For all the talk about "Russian loose nukes", it is the US Air Force which has shown an appalling lack of competence in keeping its stockpile secure.
It would be ingenious if Obama's White House quietly kept postponing NGB/ICBMx programs until that time where they just announce they have no money for it and the decision has been made to keep just the boomers. Thus entirely sidestepping the congressional "WE MUST HAVE A TRIAD AT ALL COSTS" sh*tstorm.
artjomh
Defense planning is not based on INTENTIONS, it is based on POTENTIALS. Does Russia have an intention of attacking the United States? No. Does it have a credible potential to deal serious damage to America if it does decide to attack. Most assuredly yes. Which means the US has to prepare for such an eventuality. Wise words I heard somewhere...
I would venture a guess that sadly both an American land and sea based nuclear deterrent will be built to replace Minuteman and Trident. There will just be too much resistance to change by both the generals and politicians. I guess we’ll have to wait until 2030 to see how this works out.
I always enjoy our conversations.
Frank Shuler
USA