Reports on this test by the major media (Xinhua, Interfax, AP) have been quite contradictory, both in terms of the missile tested (Topol SS25 vs Topol M SS27), and the place where the missile was launched from (variously, Plestsk or Kapustan Yar). Can you please confirm details?

Yes, the reports are quite contradictory. There seems to be some confusion about which of the Topols was tested. I relied on a report by Ivan Safronov in Kommersant - he is usually a very reliable source.

I'm a bit surprised that an ICBM can fly as short a flight as that, especially if it was launched from Kapustin Yar. But I suppose if you want the option of nuking China as well as the US you need a fair degree of flexibility in missile range characteristics. (Is this all explained in the book?)

Also, assuming the trajectory was neither lofted nor depressed, does this mean the booster was shut down significantly early and the missile flew an IRBM-like trajectory at an IRBM-like speed? Depending on the missile defence penetration technique used, I would think that might make a significant difference in the system's performance.

I don't think it's that unusual to launch a missile on a lofted or depressed trajectory. The Soviet Union used Sary-Shagan to test its missile defenses. I would guess it had experience with launching all kind of missile on all kinds of trajectories.

Hmm. OK, thanks.

I suppose a lofted trajectory, in particular, wouldn't present any real problems. Slight lofting may be the most likely means of adjusting the missile's range to whatever it needs to be either for testing or actual use. Depressed trajectories might present more problems, due to higher aerodynamic loadings on the missile during boost and the longer and shallower re-entry. I read somewhere that Soviet SLBMs (at least) were never tested on a depressed trajectory. Maybe that was wrong or is now out of date, or can be simply explained by their shorter ranges being more compatible with the distance to the test areas.

Significant depressing or lofting, as we might expect for ICBMs on a short test flight, would make for much shallower or much steeper re-entries, respectively, that would, it seems to me, also change the performance of the re-entry vehicle and penetration aids during missile-defence tests.

Still, as you say, the Soviet Union chose to do its missile-defence testing at Sary-Shagan. They must have calculated that whatever the performance differences inherent in that location were, they were not large enough to prevent sufficiently realistic testing. (Or maybe, like the MDA, they were never all that concerned about realistic testing.)

Cheers.

The wording of the press release is similar to the language used to describe the gliding payload tested aboard the RS-18 in 2004. Is it possible they've retrofitted the vehicle for flight aboard a smaller ICBM, or designed a smaller version of the IGLA? If the payload was a glide vehicle (instead of a typical RV) then any range under the missile's normal range would be unsurprising -- a glide vehicle with sufficient heat shielding could perform a pitch-down maneuver at almost any point in its flight.

There has been so much confusion about that "glide vehicle" and about this test that I would not trust the reports that link them together. We'll just have to wait for more information. My guess is that it was a test of regular (or advanced) decoys and penetration aids.

Bill Gertz weighs in:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051120-115514-2217r.htm

Yes, but his evidence is quite thin. He basically recycles Russian press reports, which are not quite consistent to say the least.

Something related to the maneuverable warhead known as Igla? There are some articles from N. Sokov talking about this warhead. It looks as a very impressive gadget to defeat NMD

I would be very cautious about trusting reports about "Igla" or whatever "maneuverable warhead" is there. A lot of this talk is just speculation based on poor reporting.