A few recent developments and disclosures require an update of the information on the number of operational systems and their status.
First, the Rocket Forces received the first three mobile Topol-M (SS-27) missiles, which were deployed in Teykovo. The 2006 plans also called for deployment of three new silo-based Topol-M missiles, but this part of the plan has not materialized. The missiles, however, are on their way and it is likely that they will be deployed in Tatishchevo in the early 2007. Until this happens, the Rocket Forces will have the total of 45 Topol-M missiles – 42 silo-based and three road-mobile. The Rocket Forces continued decommissioning older Topol (SS-25) missiles. At the end of the year, there were 252 missiles of this type in the operational force.
Then, I have to correct my error in the number of Tu-160 strategic bombers. There are 15 aircraft of this type in the 37th Army. The bomber that joined the division in Engels in July 2006 after modernization, apparently was one of the test bombers in Zhukovsky and not part of the operational force, as I wrongly assumed.
As a result of these changes and corrections, I estimate that the Russian strategic forces include 762 strategic launchers that can carry up to 3373 nuclear warheads.
Among other changes are the apparent end of life of the Cosmos-2388 early-warning satellite and the addition of a new radar in Lekhtusi to the early-warning radar network. In addition to that, it turned out that the Moscow missile defense system, A-135, now includes only short-range interceptors of the 53T6 type. Long-range 51T6 interceptors have been withdrawn from service.
The book
Comments
So, do we now think the future number of Tu-160 strategic bombers will total 16 with the delivery of the last "test" aircraft currently undergoing modernization and expected to reach the military in 2007?
Correct me if I’m wrong, this aircraft (the 16th for 2007 delivery) is considered “new” because it has never been in operational service and not because it is newly manufactured. This aircraft represents the second of the two research & development airplanes originally built for the Tu-160 program. Am I right here?
Frank Shuler
USA
Yes, it looks like there will be 16 Tu-160 planes if the new one enters service this year as planned. But as far as I understand, it will be a newly built aircraft. An attempt to track down all Tu-160 is here (in Russian).
How do you know that Cosmos 2388 nears the end of its life?
Determining the status of a Russian early-warning satellite is relatively easy - a working satellite has to maneuver once in a while to keep its orbit within certain limits.
And what sources point the information that there was no maneuvering activity from this satellite? :)
The source of the information is orbital data published by NORAD at the www.space-track.org site.
Pavel:
A question on Russian warhead development:
Is Russia continuing to develop new warheads for its missile inventory based on old historical designs that have undergone “live” underground testing or are its new warheads now based on designs validated only by computer simulation?
Frank Shuler
USA
As I understand, Russian designers are quite confident that they can build new warheads without testing. There were reports that Russia is, in fact, building a new warhead for the R-29RM Sineva missile.
Pavel:
American scientists, both within the Department of Energy and out, are very concerned about the United States developing the new Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) without physically testing the design. I think the argument is being used by both sides of the political spectrum to fulfill their needs. Those that think only a big American inventory serves our national defense, favor retaining the present weapons and keeping a large stock of reserve warheads for redundancy and future adaptations. How can we ask Iran to limit its nuclear weapon ambitions if we start a new multi-billion dollar program ourselves? The second group wants the new RRW program and justifies the new nuclear warhead program by being able to reduce the overall stockpile of American arms; getting to a lower absolute number. Less nuclear weapons are better than more is their argument.
That is the debate.
Here’s my curiosity. Just because the DOE rebuilds the W-76 warhead, reducing the yield from 100kt to 60, increasing the accuracy, refusing the detonation system, and hardening the shielding doesn’t mean a new design has been created. This “new W-76” for Trident is still the design that was live-tested in Nevada these many years ago. Are these new Russian warheads actually new designs, designed from a blank piece of paper if you will, or adaptations of existing designs that have been long proven by testing. I guess that’s my question.
Frank Shuler
USA
My guess would be that the new Russian designs are modifications of the ones that have been tested before. Why would anyone need to build something from scratch?
Welcome to the new world of the “Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW)” project! Clean sheet of paper. Scary.
Frank Shuler
USA
Why scary? Even if it will have, say, 50% reliability, I hope nobody will ever find it out.
My fear is one day we will find out...
Frank Shuler
USA
Are you concerned that it will work or that it won't?
Pavel:
I’m concerned the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) is a weapon system being built to be used; not being build as a deterrent. This subtle change is a huge shift in US policy and there has been little public debate. This project is broad based within the US Government and well funded, yet, without a real Congressional mandate. The major Department of Energy Weapons Lab’s are currently designing and fabricating components to develop this new generation family of nuclear weapons that would be more reliable and scalable in capability.
Present thinking is calling for only four warhead designs to be built. One design is for a new sea-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), another for a new ICBM, one for a gravity bomb and the last for a new air-launched missile. All the warheads would have a fail-safe device embedded that would allow for the warhead to be remotely deactivated in the event the warhead was ever seized by terrorist. Each warhead would have accuracy measured in GPS terms. Each warhead would be scalable in lethality from only a few kilotons to over a megaton-plus in yield. I think this will be the most powerful nuclear system ever built and the most dangerous. I submit a US Minuteman ICBM with a W78 warhead of 335 kt is a deterrent. The Minuteman-successor armed with a GPS accurate, deep-penetrating 5 kt warhead is a weapon built to use.
[Are you concerned that it will work or that it won't?] Pavel, for me, the only way a nuclear weapon “works” is if it prevents war and is never used.
Frank Shuler
USA
I wouldn't be that pessimistic. The RRW debate is very much "supply-driven". The military don't seem to be interested in all these "usable" capabilities.
The January 2007 START-I MOU for Russia says that there are only 14 deployed Tu-160 in Engels (plus 5 test aircraft in Zhukovsky and 0 in Kazan'). At the same time we all remember "the 15th" plane delivered from overhaul in July. Where is it? I admit I am confused.
The situation with bombers is indeed confusing. For a detailed reconstruction of bomber movements, see this comment (it's in Russian). As I understand, the 15th aircraft is the one that used to be in Zhukovsky.