The Russian military are promising again to deploy multiple warheads on Topol-M missiles - this time "in two-three years", according to the commander of the Rocket Forces. Well, it won't happen in two years - the START Treaty, which effectively prohibits MIRVing Topol-M, will not expire until December 2009. It probably won't happen in three years either - even if Russia will get serious about MIRVing, it would take time to test the new warhead and deploy it. In fact, I hope it won't happen at all, since there is absolutely no reason to make Topol-M carry multiple warheads. Other than, of course, to artificially inflate the total number of warheads in Russia's arsenal, so Russia won't lose in the meaningless "who has the most nuclear warheads" contest. As if it matters.
A lot of people in Russia, however, believe that the number of nuclear warheads is important, so we regularly see reports that declare that Topol-M will have seven warheads or that Bulava will carry ten. Nothing is, of course, entirely impossible, but it would be interesting to see what the actual MIRVing potential of these missiles may look like.
According to the START data exchange, Topol-M is a single-warhead missile with throw-weight of 1200 kg, Bulava is a six-warhead missile, whose throw-weight is declared as 1150 kg at the moment (START Treaty allows adjustment of the declared throw-weight based on the results of flight tests, so this number may change, but it is unlikely that it would change dramatically).
Historical data show that the weight of warheads comes to about half of the declared throw-weight of a missile. For example, this is true for a single-warhead Topol, whose warhead is under 500 kg, and for RT-23UTTH (SS-24) - its ten warheads weighed about 2000 kg (declared throw-weight of these missiles is 1000 and 4050 kg respectively). Another half of the payload is probably taken by the bus (for MIRVed missiles), missile defense penetration aids and things like that. There is certainly some room for maneuver there, but we can probably assume that this relationship will hold for a notional MIRVed Topol-M and for Bulava.
This means that each of the six declared Bulava warheads would weigh about 90 kg. The most lightweight warheads deployed in the Soviet Union and Russia so far were those of R-29R and R-39 missiles, with weights in the 110-130 kg range (this includes reentry vehicle body and electronics) and yields of 50 and 75 kt respectively. The R-29R warheads are unlikely candidates - they are fairly old. The R-39 ones seem to be too heavy to have six of them fit on Bulava - 75-kt warheads would eat up about 70% of Bulava's throw-weight instead of usual 50%. It is hard to tell without knowing the details of the missile design if this is going to be a problem.
Another possibility for Bulava is to have a new warhead that would resemble the U.S. W76, deployed on Trident I C-4 missiles. According to Soviet data, W76 has the weight of 91.7 kg (of which 61.5 kg was the nuclear charge, 22.7 kg - reentry vehicle body, and 6.7 kg - electronics). With the yield of 100 kt, it had a yield-to-weight ratio which is slightly better but comparable to that of the R-39 warhead (100 kt/61.5 kg vs. 75 kt/about 50-55 kg, which is about 20% difference), indicating that development of a 90-kg warhead with a 75 to 100 kt yield would not require any breakthroughs and could probably be done without nuclear tests.
As for Topol-M, it is possible that it could carry the same 90-kg warhead, should one be developed for Bulava. In this case, Topol-M would indeed be able to carry seven of them, although it would be somewhat unusual for a land-based missile to have small-yield warheads. Another option for Topol-M would be to have three warheads of the type deployed on R-23UTTH/SS-24 - at about 200 kg each they would take about half of the throw-weight of the missile. With the yield of 400 kt, they would be more in line with the historic trend.
But then again, nothing of this really matters - none of these new warheads have any reasonable mission. The "MIRVed Topol-M" and, to large extent, Bulava are political projects, designed for the cold-war style competition. They may as well carry warhead mockups filled with concrete - the effect would be pretty much the same.
The book
Comments
Pavel:
For some reason, I remember reading START’s ratification date was July 1 and thus the 15 year agreement would expire on June 30, 2009. Is this in error?
Frank Shuler
USA
Pavel,
would you say it is another attempt to threaten US on their way to deploy anti-ballistic missile systems? It seems like there are a number of different threats Russia makes and I understand the major point is not to actually start to pull ourselves in this race again.
Frank: The START Treaty was signed in July 1991 (on July 31st), but entered into force on December 4th, 1994.
Aleksandr: I don't think a MIRVed Topol-M would be considered much of a threat by the United States. More likely U.S. wouldn't care.
Pavel:
Thanks for the START timeline. I never quite understood that the treaty period began with the ratification and not the actual signing. Thus, the fifteen year period covering the treaty expires in 2009. My hope for an extension is fading. Neither the Russian or American government's seem really interested.
Frank Shuler
USA
I can't understand this irrational oposition to MIRVing Topol-m.
If the effect will be the same with MIRV or a single warhead or a concrete mockup, well..., let's MRV them (after all it is the same).
Kolokol
PD: Remember Kosovo
> Well, it won’t happen in two years – the START Treaty, which effectively prohibits MIRVing Topol-M, will not expire until December 2009.
2, 2.5 or 3 years - a difference in few months does not matter.
So Commander is right. ;-)
Rumors indicate that the nuclear charges of the MIRV warhead for the Topol-m & Bulava family will come from the RSM-52 with just small modernizations to obtain sligtly lighther 100 kT vehicles.
I will search for the article.
Interesting article from RIA Novosti posted May 22nd.
Apparently the Russian Navy is transferring two regiments of Tu-22m bombers to the Russian Air Force, specifically the 37th Air Army of the Strategic Command as part of major organizational changes.
I think the inference is that the Russian Navy is giving up its Tu-22m’s and as a result its role in maritime strike missions. (my conclusions)
The article stated the Russian Air Force has an inventory of 124 “Backfire” bombers and this move will increase that total by 58 aircraft.
Frank Shuler
USA
Logical move. Hunting Nimitz based groups is not the most likely scenario for today years.
On the contrary near-abroad spots can become threatening. Tu-22M3 fits perfectly for targeting areas in the whole Eurasian mass-land
Kolokol:
Agreed. Sounds like a sensible change in defense policy.
Frank Shuler
USA
An indication of this change would be a re-shape of the Tu-22M3 war-load. After all Kh-22 are quite obsolete leaving just the Kh-15 as an "up to date" weapon.
Smart bombs and new AS stand-off missiles (like i.e. Klub and/or Onix) would be a feasible option.
Kolokol:
The Tu-22M3, even with stand-off munitions available today, is a better solution to many of Russia’s security needs that IRBMs. The Backfire is still an incredible warplane. That’s where I would invest my budget.
Frank Shuler
USA
I agree with you Frank. Bakcfires with a deep modernization package are very well fitted to cover up to 5.000 km farther than the Russian border. If Russia is interested in saving the INF, the Tu-22 will be the weapon of choice. Anyway, a new/modernized set of missiles will be needed (I.e something like the Skybolt will be very interesting). Also, the electronic set used to deliver smart bombs, but I think this is considered in the ongoing AirFleet modernization plan.
Now what's this RS-24 I've been reading about today?
"Russia has test-launched a new intercontinental ballistic missile, Russian military officials say...
The missile, called RS-24, can be armed with up to 10 warheads and was designed to evade missile defence systems, the Russian defence ministry says...
The missile, called RS-24, can be armed with up to 10 warheads and was designed to evade missile defence systems, the Russian defence ministry says."
That last segment should read...
"RS-24 will replace ICBMs of the previous generations RS-18 (SS-19 Stiletto) and RS-20 (SS-18 Satan) capable of carrying six and ten warheads respectively, the spokesman said."
Is it just the SS-24 'scalpel'? Are they restarting production? Or is this a modernised version of that missile? A development on it? Either way, very curious.
There is no "RS-24" previously known. I bet this is the usual game with names but with an old system.
But they do mention it can carry 10 warheads, so is it a new heavy ICBM? And if not, which old system are they renaming?
> The Backfire is still an incredible warplane. That’s where I would invest my budget.
- But Sukhoi T4MS could be even more cool object of investments... :-)
Here's two birds on the fly...
american, russia , iran, europa..its the only names in world force now ...but ana but thers appear for the waiting effect force. world reail force will appear soon from source of sources ,will appear from far land ,new location in heart of world , soliders was rest from tousands years and time of wake up is will coming ,, (army of quraan)
In my opinion its not practical to equip Russian MIRVs with warheads that are less than 100kts, reduced firepower in strike weapons eliminates their principal purpose, to cause as much destruction as possible.
I believe Russia should develop a new warhead that is simillar to the American W88. This should allow them to arm their missiles with 10 MIRVs each capable of 450+ kilotons yield.
Согласно опубликованным официальным сведениям,самая современная боеголовка малого класса мощности была поставлена в СССР на вооружение в феврале 1986 г. на БРПЛ Р-29РМ,в октябре 1987 г. на БРПЛ Р-29РКУ и в январе 1988 г. на БРПЛ Р-З9У.Мощность-100 кт.Ее создателям в ноябре 1985 г. была присуждена Госпремия СССР.
М.А.Пашнев
For those who don't read Russian - the point of the comment above is that "according to published official data" the Soviet warhead with the smallest yield was deployed on R-29RM and R-39. It had a yield of 100 kt.
My take is that we need to see those "published official data" to make any conclusions. At this point, I see no reason to doubt Katayev's data, which give 75 kt for the R-39 warhead.
Павел!Эти материалы-официальная книга "СКБ-З85,КБМ,ГРЦ КБ им.академика В.П.Макеева",изданная к юбилею этой уважаемой организации ее же силами.Под категорию "фантастика" не подходит.В интернете ее можно найти,например,на сайте makeyev.msk.ru
What yield Kataev's data give for a R-27 SLBM?
For a Kh-22?
For a Kh-55?
For a gravity bombs ?
For a Meteorit?
This is quite interesting.
Pavel
Thanks for very interesting data. Still some comments/suggestions.
1. "Historical data show that the weight of warheads comes to about half of the declared throw-weight of a missile."
The sole purpose of the bus is to give warheads a small lateral speeds to guide them to individual targets. There is absolutely no physics or engineering need in making it half the throw weight. Penetration aids are first not needed (since there is no working ABM) and second their usefulness is questionable, since future advanced ABM systems can be able to distinguish between them and real warheads. In any case, if penetration aids are included they should be light. Probably the bus weight of 25% of throw weight is achievable easily enough.
The real reason behind "Historical data" is probably that because of arm reduction treaties and other reasons, the missiles were not equipped to the maximum possible number of warheads.
Now when Russia tries to have warheads at as small cost as possible its logical to assume that all available throw weight will be used.
2. "Another option for Topol-M would be to have three warheads of the type deployed on R-23UTTH/SS-24 - at about 200 kg each they would take about half of the throw-weight of the missile. With the yield of 400 kt, they would be more in line with the historic trend."
With 100kt US warhead weight of 90kg it is highly unlikely (read impossible) that soviet 400kt warhead will be only 2 times heavier. Especially since soviet warheads have always been heavier then their American counterparts.
The RT-23 400kt warhead (which by the way in many places is reported as 550kt) should be more like 300kg. Then everything falls into place: RT-23 has 10 400kt warheads which take 75% of throw weight (3000kg out of 4000). RS-24 has 3 400kt warheads which again take 75% of throw weight (900kg out of 1200kg).
3. "This means that each of the six declared Bulava warheads would weigh about 90 kg. The most lightweight warheads deployed in the Soviet Union and Russia so far were those of R-29R and R-39 missiles, with weights in the 110-130 kg range (this includes reentry vehicle body and electronics) and yields of 50 and 75 kt respectively."
Bulava throw weight is declared as 1150 kg. But according to leaked designs (see Wikipedia), on Bulava the bus is combined with its liquid fuel 3rd stage. That means bus is probably not included in Bulava throw weight (since 3rd stage is doing a bus work). So almost all of 1150 kg can be used for warheads.
In this light the claims that Bulava can have 10 warheads seems pretty reasonable: it can have 10 x 50kt 110kg warheads for example.
Currently it is declared that Bulava will have 6 150kt warheads. Given 90kg US 100kt warhead, its reasonably to assume that Russian 150kt warhead would weight 150kg, which gives 900kg for 6 warheads and sits nicely in Bulava.
4. And lastly "But then again, nothing of this really matters - none of these new warheads have any reasonable mission."
I don't agree. However unlikely, Russia must be prepared for sudden decapitating nuclear strike from the US. That's what all nuclear deterrent is about, and why Russia has nuclear weapons in the first place.
With such a strike US is easily able to destroy all Russian missiles except deployed road mobile launchers and submarines on patrol. Part of the latter will also be destroyed since US satellite and other intelligence is best in the world and getting better all the time.
With 90-95% warheads destroyed by the first strike, its not inconceivable that the rest will be destroyed by future layered missile defense systems.
On the other side, unlike Soviet Union, Russia doesn't have money or industry to build thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles anymore.
To be able to guarantee response after US first strike, the force of 1000-2000 warheads is needed, all of which should be either road mobile or based on new built (ultra stealthy) submarines. Thus, the only option for Russia is to put as many warheads on each missile as possible.
If history (Hiroshima) has taught as anything, its that nuclear weapons are not games. Nuclear deterrent is the only way to guarantee that they will not be used again.
Nakajima
You can't put 10 475kt W88 warheads in Topol or Bulava. This warhead is too heavy: 360kg. But 100kt W76 weights only 90kg. You can put 10 of them in these missiles.
And about "their principal purpose, to cause as much destruction as possible." its not really correct. Their purpose its to deter any country from attacking Russia.
It doesn't matter if 475kt or 100kt warheads detonate over Washington DC., New York and Los Angeles. What matters is that/if Russia can guarantee it in any scenario. And more warheads it has - the better the guarantee.
W76's weight-170 pounds with RV body.
W76 was not lighest US warhead.
Mk 18 RV have a 150 pounds (LANL designed 4 warheads for it) and in 1967 plans were to put as many as 8 Mk 18 Rvs on Minuteman 3.