The Russian media quote an unnamed defense industry source as saying that the Sarmat heavy ICBM will be eventually be deployed with two divisions - in Dombarovskiy and Uzhur. it is expected that the total of seven regiments with 46 missiles will be deployed (six missiles in a regiment plus one ten-missile regiment). The flight tests of the missile are not expected to begin before 2017 (so, the earlier report about the missile making an appearance in 2015 probably meant something else).
This is hardly surprising - only these two divisions have silos that are large enough to accommodate a large missile (although it's quite possible that the SS-19/SS-24 silos would have worked as well - Sarmat appears to be in the SS-19 rather than in SS-18 category). Together with the report about projected deployment of 30 rail-mobile missiles of the Barguzin system, the news about Sarmat shows that the concept of economies of scale generally eludes the Russian government - whatever are the alleged advantages of the new missile, it's hard to justify the development cost if you end up deploying only 46 of them. Yes, the Untied States ended up deploying 50 MX in silos in the 1980s, but the initial goal of the Peacekeeper program was 310 missiles. Sarmat probably won't end costing its weight in gold, but it will be an expensive missile.
The book
Comments
Perhaps, the “Sarmat missile project” can be seen as an attempt by the Kremlin to specifically preserve the industrial base for building liquid fueled missiles. The R-29R (SS-N-18) and R-29RM (SS-N-23) are going away. So are the UR-100NUTTH (SS-19) and R-36M2 (SS-18)s. (with the SS-N-18 and SS-19s going first) Given that objective, the small number of systems to be acquired is relative. This project must be a lifeline to the Makeyev Design Bureau-NPOmash consortium. MITT needs the competition; Russia benefits. Just an opinion.
Frank Shuler
USA
The concern quite survives on contracts for two types of cruise missiles for fleet ("Onyx" and "Zircon"), the 4202 project, Condor satellites, etc. These are very big orders. If financing remains, the NPOmash will live without problems.
The same with the Makeyev Design Bureau which has the order on the Sineva SLBM for the next years. Besides it is involved in the Bulava SLBM project, new space launchers, etc.
Alexander Stukalin
And if financial funding does not “remain”, what do you think of Russian nuclear modernization? What priorities would the Kremlin set if there is not monies available to finance all? Would there be projects postponed or cancelled? Or, would procurements just slow down and be extended farther into the future? Very curious to your opinions.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank:
I'm curious to your opinion, too.
What will be the US answer to all those ambitious projects like:Sarmat, rail-mobile SS-27, RS-24, RS-26, Borey, new Bomber?
Are there any serious projects to counter these threats or just another modernization of Minuteman, e.g. are there any plans to have follow on ICBMs, SLBMs, B-3 etc?
Thanks in advance
Bernd Reuter:
The American response to all this has been rather muted. Nothing Russia is doing in the strategic arena is unexpected; no alarms are going off at the Pentagon. The US doesn’t seem concerned by any Russian mobile ICBM projects; although, there are some in Congress perturbed by the rail-mobile Barguzin system. I think it’s because such a rail system was not specifically accounted for in New START. No one here wants to think the Russians “got away with something”. (grin) The new Ohio-replacement submarine program is getting started and I now expect a new silo ICBM project, the replacement for Minuteman III, in the 2025 timeline. Both those projects are more orientated towards maintaining America’s nuclear deterrence rather than any response to Russian nuclear modernizations. As long as the terms of New START are respected the US seems indifferent.
However, the United States is pouring tons of monies into “black projects” in the conventional arena that are very significant. The new bomber, lets call it the B-3 for reference, is interesting. The Request for Proposal (RIP) is expected this summer to down-select a manufacturer. Production is expected to begin in 2019. Note the timeline. The B-3 prototype aircraft has been flying in the “black world” for some time. There are a host of new ghost UAVs to support the new bomber as well. The US Navy is building the Virginia-class submarines with new “payload modulars” to support “new” missiles. Can you say hypersonic? You don’t need nuclear weapons to target Russian mobile systems. By the way, I have a theory why the US isn’t “concerned” by Russian road/rail mobile nuclear ICBMs. I think we can track them in real-time.
Frank Shuler
USA
to Frank Shuler:
I think that the most expensive and least worked projects would get under reduction: such as the rail-based Barguzin ICBM, the PAK DA (new bomber), the "Perspective Heavy Underwater Platform" (new submarine with SLBM)... The 4202/Sarmat project is in big dependence on test success of its combat load... Besides, with a high probability next Borey-class submarines can be constructed with a delays.
Are there any indications as to which warheads the Sarmat will be equipped with? 550KT from Topol-M or 100Kt from RS-24? Possibly a few with 5 MT warhead from UR-100N?
Not sure where you got your numbers. 5 MT on UR-100N? The Sarmat warhead is likely to be similar to the ones deployed on R-36M2, i.e. in the 800 kt range.
Alexander Stukalin
Hard to disagree with any of your conclusions. Seems like a logical path forward for Russian nuclear modernization in a financially challenging world. What would you say is the highest priority for the Kremlin? Building RS-24s in quantity or the submarines?
Frank Shuler
USA
to Frank Shuler:
As it seems to me, both of these programs will be kept, only construction of the Borey submarites will be late on terms...
As the first step the new State
Armaments Program 2015-2025 is going to be postponed for three years:
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2670562