According to a short news update on arms-tass.su, there has been a total of 150 test, training, and readiness launches of these ICBMs with only 3 failures. The converted "civilian" carrier for delivery of satellites had 6 successful launches and 1 failure.
http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=32538&cid=25

The SS-19's service life has apparently been extended to 30 years.

http://armstass.su/?page=article&aid=32542&cid=25

A confused article on another website seems to indicate that the former Ukrainian SS-19's will remain in service until the 2030s.

http://www.strana.ru/stories/02/01/16/2353/297629.html

Hi Pavel,

you reported some time ago about three UR-100 "lost" in the Ukraine. Do you know now what happened to them?

Martin

No, I haven't heard anything about those "lost" missiles.

17 ICBM?

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061116/55705839.html

Is this a typo or an usual incorrect article? If true it means to triple the ICBM production(!)

I don't see why it cannot be 17 missiles. We'll see.

The Russian Navy will need 12 Bulava missiles for the Rs. Yuriy Dolgorukiy next year. This statement sounds consistent with what we’ve heard about the 2016-18 Plan. Thoughts?

Frank Shuler
USA

In such a case it implies a departure of the long established trend of producing around 6 per year. It will indicate a switch of priorities. May be the end of the sea leg?

Kolokol:

The “Russian” SS-N-23 Sineva missile for the Delta IV fleet entered inventory without a great deal of fanfare. Obviously, the Russian Navy needed to procure 80 operational missiles and test spares complete with new warheads. This was done with little public (press) or Duma oversight. We know Russia has the ability to produce 17 ICBMs per year, it's just a question of funding. Why not 12 Bulava and 5 Topol-Ms?

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank & Kolokol: I think Russia should build more than 17 ICBMs per year otherwise they cannot secure a balance of forces in the world. If we consider the scenario after 2016, Russia has no alternative but to build more ICBMs both land and sea- based. Some military officials claim that Russia has the capability to produce 30 ICBMs per year! I don't see money is a problem here. Russia should arrange enough money for its strategic forces.

Gentlemen
- As far I know ICBM and SLBM are computed as separated systems. SLBM are charged to the Navy and ICBM to the SRF.
- I mean it’s a big change respect to the stationary Topol-m production rate of recent years. If this indicates 17 Topol-m, it could mean a paradigm shift. Another probable explanation is a transitory spike aimed at recovering from the delayed deployment-schedule.
- Another explanation: this can be just another confusing statement from Mister I.

debpc:

I think Russia has a stated a clear plan on modernizing its nuclear arsenals that is both practical and realistic for the times. The plan by 2016-18 will provide five Project 955, Borey-class submarines, over one-hundred silo and mobile Topol-M (SS-27) missiles and a modernized bomber force complete with a new family of nuclear and conventional cruise missiles. Such a 1500-nuclear warhead force will provide for the national defense of Russia and allow her to invest farther resources into other areas of concern. I know these numbers sound stark to a nation that has always measured its might by the number of nuclear weapons in its arsenal, warheads reaching historically into the tens of thousands. However, the Kremlin could not better “protect” Russia with ten times these numbers (1500).

In this same timeframe, the US Government will begin rebuilding America’s nuclear arsenal for the next 40 years. I’ll wager the American inventory of such future nuclear weapons will not surpass 2200. Times have changed.

Frank Shuler
USA

Kolokol:

I guess what got me thinking about the inclusion of the Bulava missiles in this 17-unit total was the pictures on the website you referenced that showed Minister Sergei Ivanov and a SLBM in flight. However, if we are talking about purchasing 17 Topol-M (SS-27) missiles in 2007, that indeed is a major policy shift. I wonder if we can get a clarification?

Frank Shuler
USA

Kolokol: Putin told some positive things today. I think there will be some positive moves in near future to strengthen strategic forces. 17 ICBMs (land based) in a year is a good positive idea. But Russia cannot afford losing naval forces at the expense of 17 ICBM a year! New SLBMs and subs should be given priority if Russian forces want to survive!

I very agree with you. Nevertheless, I must admit that I’m surprised. For me, 12 ICBM and the rest of money redirected to modernization of conventional forces looks as a better option for a while.
It’s just an opinion.

I am sure this sounds a bit naive and a bit uninformed, but while Russia does need to pick up the pace of ICBM and SLBM replacement, this after all feels a bit absurd for major nuclear powers to continue spending to maintain and replace the stockpiles they have not used and hoping to never use. How about 700-1000 max of strategic warheads for Russia? Or would that present too few targets for a possible strike - if they have 200-300 launchers, is that making it tempting/interesting for others to consider a strike? I hope they squeeze all the service life they can from the Topol-M and Bulava, like they did with SS-18 and SS-19, while maintaining the research and production base.

Here is another report on the future of the Russian Nuclear Forces:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061116/55710444.html
Why does RIAN always write that there are 360 UR-100N in service? I saw that in some of there articles. As I see here there are just 126 of those missiles deployed. Are there 240 spares or do they just mixed different kinds of missiles?

Martin

Martin:

In the original START I MOU, the Soviet Union declared 130 SS-19s in Ukraine and 170 in Russia. Some of the Russian SS-19 (and SS-24) silos were converted for Topol-M (SS-27) and the SS-19 inventory has been continually drawn down. This does seem like a glaring error, doesn’t it?

Frank Shuler
USA

I think Russia should concentrate on completing the procurement of reqd. nos. of topol m's needed to deter adversaries in the shortest possible time while continuing to test the sub-sea systems for Bulava under launch conditions without spending too much. The submarines are required any way for monitoring undersea snooping by enemies. In time they would be ready to receive Bulavas for depolyment. If this is needed to be done 17 ICBM's will not do. It would need many more per year.