As much as I don't like the New START data exchange rules that keep almost all the data secret, on some level the uncertainty feels right. Indeed, why would anybody seriously care if there are, say, 55 or 50 SS-18 missiles? There is no military significance in these numbers anymore. They do matter, of course, but only from the point of view of accountability - it is a good idea to know how many missiles and nuclear warheads are out there.
As a result of the New START lack of transparency, the only data on the Russian strategic forces that we have is the aggregate number of deployed launchers and warheads associated with them. We also know the total number of deployed and non-deployed launchers. Not much, but it's better than nothing.
Parsing these numbers is somewhat difficult, since there are quite a few unknown parameters - for example, some missiles could be deployed with fewer warheads than their maximum load, throwing off any attempt to reconstruct the original data. But an estimate can be made nonetheless, even though an imperfect one. Below is what I believe is a reasonable fit.
First, the numbers. According to the most recent data exchange, as of March 1, 2012 Russia had 494 deployed launchers that carried 1492 warheads. The total number of launchers, deployed and non-deployed, was 881.
One possible fit for these numbers is the following breakdown by services - 332 ICBMs with 1092 warheads, 96 SLBMs with 336 warheads, and 66 bombers counted as one warhead each. These numbers produce the correct number of deployed launchers, but two extra warheads - 1494, indicating that there is a problem somewhere. But it's probably close enough.
In this estimate, the Strategic Rocket Forces have 55 R-36M2 missiles with 10 warheads each, 35 UR-100NUTTH with six warheads, 150 Topol missiles, 74 single-warhead Topol-M (56 in silos and 18 road-mobile), and 18 RS-24 missiles that carry six warheads each. It appears that the number of RS-24 launchers that are counted as deployed is actually higher than 18 - at least 18 are in Teykovo and probably three more have been already delivered to Novosibirsk. But since only 18 appear to be on combat duty, I'll keep that number for the moment.
There is a bit more certainty with submarines - out of six Project 667BDRM submarines three - Novomoskovsk, Verkhoturie, and Ekaterinburg - are in overhaul. None of the two Project 955 submarines has missiles on board, so their tubes would be counted as non-deployed launchers. If we count three Project 667BDR submarines and their missiles as deployed, we'll get 96 SLBMs and 336 warheads.
Finally, I estimate that 55 Tu-95MS and 11 Tu-160 bombers are counted as deployed - this adds another 66 warheads.
There are also 387 non-deployed launchers. At first, this number seems a bit high, but it is not - it includes almost 90 UR-100NUTTH silos, about 50 R-36M2 silos, 60 launchers on three Project 941 submarines, 32 Bulava launchers on two Project 955 submarines, and 48 tubes on Project 667BDRM submarines in overhaul. There are also test and training launchers, test bombers, etc. It all adds up to about the right number.
Still, this is only an estimate and should be taken as such. I hope that a few more bits of information and maybe a better analysis of the data could produce a better picture, but I don't think the difference would matter very much.
The book
Comments
Pavel, do you know if the Topol-M family of missiles can be deployed in R-36M silos, or are they going only into modified UR-100N silos?
As I understand, there is nothing that would prevent deployment of Topol-M in R-36M silos.These are mostly (reinforced concrete) holes in the ground - everything deployable is in the missile container.
I see. Another question, Pavel. Why do you have RS-24 listed with 6 warheads? If it is, as you claim, a carbon copy of Topol-M, then how can it have 6 warheads? That would mean that either RS-24 carries no penaids, or the weight of each warhead is less than 50 kg.
The word was that Russia listed RS-24 with six warheads in the New START exchange. It would be a small warhead indeed, but the idea behind RS-24 is to have more warheads, not necessarily to have more reasonably sized (if there is such thing) warheads. If I remember correctly, it would be heavier than 50 kg - about 100 kt/90 kg.
Perhaps the existing SS-18 silos would be held for the future “heavy liquid fueled missile” project? That would make some sense from a technical perspective. However, it does raise my question. Exactly how many SS-19/24 silos are there for the Topol M (SS-27 and RS-24) deployments? I seem to remember there were 130 or so such silos on Russian soil but would appreciate any definitive answer.
Frank Shuler
USA
There were 120 SS-19 silo launchers declared in the last START MOU (July 2009).
Pavel,
Would this mean that RS-24 is a retaliatory weapon? I imagine 100kt wouldn't be enough to destroy Minuteman III silos with current CEP? Which raises a question, how big do you think CEP is?
Ivan
Neither the Soviet Union nor Russia ever had a counterforce capability. Survivability was always more important.
Follow up SS-24 question. I remember most of the silo SS-24s were in Ukraine and the missiles were returned to Russia, post START, for storage awaiting dismantling. The Ukrainian SS-24 silos were destroyed as part of START compliance. The last SS-24 rail models were taken out of service by Russia around 2007-8. However, there were 10 silo SS-24s in Russia as well. I’m assuming those silos were destroyed as part of STARTs limit on launchers (1600)?
Frank Shuler
USA
Those Russian SS-24 silos were in Tatishchevo - they were used for Topol-Ms. (As for SS-24 missiles - they were left in Ukraine and eliminated there.)
Why Russia withdrawn from service SS-24 missile?. I think it was the best ICBM system in Soviet Union/Russia.
What is "the best" in this context? Anyway, the first stage of the missile was produced in Ukraine, so it wasn't practical to keep it.
SS-24 was a heavy solid fuel ICBM. It could carry 10 heavy MIRV warhead and more penetration aids and very good CEP. It can use in silo and mobile complex. R-36M2 also was produce in Ukraine and now is still in service.
R-36M2 is a liquid-fuel missile. Solid-propellant missiles don't age as well. Besides, the Soviet Union had some experience with extending lives of liquid-fuel missiles, but not with that of their solid-propellant counterparts.
Уважаемый Павел!
Подскажите, пожалуйста - где, в каких документах, можно ознакомиться с тем, что РФ позиционировала РС-24 как МБР с 6-ю ББ? Как Вы считаете, если в РГЧ РС-24 действительно 6 ББ, то есть ли там же КСП ПРО?
Кстати, вот по этой ссылке есть фотоальбом с фотографиями ПГРК "Ярс" в высоком разрешении:
http://vpk-news.ru/photographs/gallery/433/
[For those who don't read Russian, the question is about the source of information on six warheads on RS-24. The link is to high-resolution photos of RS-24]
The information about six warheads on RS-24 was published in the Nuclear Notebook - http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/2/87.full.pdf+html (see p. 91). As I understand, it's quite reliable. Decoys and penetration aids are normally deployed in addition to warheads, not instead of them. It doesn't really make sense to have a warhead mockup - a real warhead is the best decoy.
Thanks for the link to the photos - very interesting.
Only two SS-19 regiments remained in Kozelsk Division:
http://www.tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201207122252-8xqt.htm
Thank you. As I understand, all SS-19 in Tatishchevo are gone by now. Do we know when did it happen?
No. The RVSN officials say now that SS-19 remain in 60th MD silos.
Thank you. That's good to know.