It is (almost) official now – the RS-24 missile that Russia tested on May 29, 2007 is a multiple-warhead version of Topol-M. That was my guess at the time of the test, but now I have had it confirmed. The missile, of course, have a new warhead section, but it is a Topol-M. It was said to use a guidance system that shares technology with that of the Bulava SLBM and, just as I suspected, it will be using the same warheads. It appears, though, that MIRVed Topol-M will carry no more than six warheads (the range was reported to be from three to six, but no final number yet).
MIRVing of Topol-M has long been somewhat of an obsession in Russia – there is a broad consensus among experts across the spectrum that this could compensate for the slow pace of the missile deployment, if only by artificially making the Russian forces look bigger. I think this belief is deeply misguided, but this is where the Russian debate stands.
The problem that has been holding back the a straightforward MIRVing of Topol-M was that it would violate one of the START Treaty provisions. The START Treaty prohibits “increasing the number of warheads attributed to an ICBM or SLBM of an existing or new type” (Article V.12d). Since for the purposes of the treaty Topol-M is just a “variant” of the Topol missile, Russia cannot simply declare that from a certain point Topol-M will be equipped with multiple warheads. To make MIRVing possible, Russia has to have a new missile, with multiple warheads attributed to it from the very beginning.
By saying that MIRVed Topol-M is a new missile, Russia has tried to avoid this conflict – RS-24 will apparently be declared as a new multiple-warhead missile. But there is a problem with that too – the treaty requires a “new type” missile to be substantially different from existing ones. This is how the treaty defines “new type”:
69. (59) The term "new type" means, for ICBMs or SLBMs, a type of ICBM or SLBM, the technical characteristics of which differ from those of an ICBM or SLBM, respectively, of each type declared previously in at least one of the following respects:(a) number of stages;
(b) type of propellant of any stage;
(c) launch weight, by ten percent or more;
(d) length of either the assembled missile without front section, or length of the first stage, by ten percent or more;
(e) diameter of the first stage, by five percent or more; or
(f) throw-weight, by an increase of 21 percent or more, in conjunction with a change in the length of the first stage by five percent or more.
Here is the table from the latest START MOU that shows that Topol-M stays within these limits (footnotes are in the original):
| Topol | Topol-M silo | Topol-M mobile | |
| Number of stages | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Length of assembled missile without front section, m | 18.5 | 17.9 | 17.9 |
| Maximum diameter of missile airframe (without stabilizers, raceways, lug guides, or other protruding elements), m | 1.80 | 1.86 | 1.86 |
| Launch weight [1], tonnes | 45.1 | 47.2 | 47.2 |
| Total length of missile as a unit with launch canister (with front section), m | 22.3 | 22.7 | 22.3 |
| Total length of missile as a unit with launch canister (without front section) [2], m |
20.0 |
19.4 | 19.5 |
| Length of launch canister body. m | 20.0 | 19.4 | 19.5 |
| Diameter of launch canister body (without protruding elements), m | 2.00 | 1.95 | 2.05 |
| First stage | |||
| Length. m | 8.10 | 8.04 | 8.04 |
| (6.5) [4] | |||
| Length used for confirming a new type [5], m |
7.4 | 6.9 | 6.9 |
| Diameter, m | 1.80 | 1.86 | 1.86 |
| Weight of fully loaded stage [1], tonnes | 27.8 | 28.6 | 28.6 |
| Second stage | |||
| Diameter (if different from first stage), m |
1.55 |
1.61 | 1.61 |
| Third stage | |||
| Diameter (if different from first stage), m |
1.34 |
1.58 | 1.58 |
[2] As received from manufacturing plant.
[3] Without additional canister part (skirt) containing front section. [4] Length of SS-25 ICBM first stage, burned without nozzle attached, is 6.5 m.
[5] Data will be provided when a new type of ICBM or SLBM is declared, for the purpose of confirming a change in the stage length of an ICBM or SLBM of a new type in comparison with the stage length of ICBMS or SLBMS of existing or previously declared new types.
This is not an accident, of course – the “new type” definition was designed to make sure that Topol-M can pretend to be a “variant” of Topol (which it is, in fact, not). But now this means that if RS-24 is not different from Topol-M, it cannot be legally considered a new missile.
I can see only one realistic option for RS-24 to be a new type missile – it has to have throw-weight that is larger than 1210 kg – more than 21 percent increase compared to Topol. Since it is less than one percent increase relative to the currently deployed Topol-M, it is probably doable. It would satisfy the requirement in paragraph (f), since the length of the first stage is already more than five percent different from that of Topol.
In fact, RS-24 may not even have to have larger throw-weight. At the moment, Russia can declare it as a prototype, which means it does not have to attribute a number of warheads or throw-weight to the missile until it is flight-tested at least 20 times or deployed. Since START is set to expire in December 2009, this means that Russia may avoid a conflict with the treaty by simply withholding the final throw-weight declaration until then.
This, of course, assumes that it is Topol, not Topol-M, that serves as a reference point. If this is not the case, RS-24 is most likely already in violation of the START Treaty. If its dimensions and weight are the same as those of Topol-M, as they apparently are, even withholding the throw-weight data under the prototype rule does not help – if the length of the first stage is not different by five percent, a missile cannot be considered new no matter what its throw-weight is. And the size and weight data should be reported right away.
We’ll have to wait until the July START MOU data are released in October to see what Russia has declared. In any event, the United States apparently decided not to challenge RS-24’s treaty compliance, probably finding the “prototype” explanation satisfactory. This is hardly surprising given that the U.S. administration has no intention to extend the treaty. A bit of a bad news here is that Russia is apparently has given up on the START Treaty extension as well. And it is not clear if the United States and Russia have what it takes to negotiate something meaningful to replace START.
The book
Comments
Pavel:
Excellent review. Do you have a feel for future production rates & schedules? Do we expect the SS-27 Topol-M missile to be superseded in the production line by the RS-24 or both manufactured simultaneously?
Frank Shuler
USA
Or could they just do a 'conversion', swapping the warhead section?
I also wonder about the yield of these warheads. If they're Bulava, they'll likely be, what, 100kt? Very small for a Russian ICBM. What's the likely CEP for these things? Unless they've greatly increased the accuracy, it makes me doubt they'd be be reliable weapons against hard-kill targets like Minuteman silos.
> It is (almost) official now - the RS-24 missile that Russia tested on May 29, 2007 is a multiple-warhead version of Topol-M.
Dear Pavel:
I've read your small review, and find many of your arguments interesting and - (formally), - satisfactory. But I do think that the explanation that 'RS-24 is just a MIRVed Topol-M' is a little bit primitive, just because you've ignored some of the cues, originated from official information about RS-24 testing. These cues are:
- According to all the official releases, RS-24 was launched from a modified TEL (Transporter-Erector-Launcher); so, that's a question to you - if RS-24 is just a 'Topol-M' MIRVed - why the modified TEL was needed for RS-24 launch??? Of course, these 'TEL modifications' could be 'cosmetical', i.e. insignificant, but - what if these TEL mods was made to accomodate on a TEL a new launch canister with heavier missile?
By the way, MZKT-79221 (MAZ-7922) TEL can accomodate up to 80 tonns payload, - and what is the weight of Topol-M with launch canister? Can you feel here the wide possibilities for further progress, from the 'Topol-M' point?
- Another cue from official release, tells directly that 'RS-24 can accomodate 10 (TEN!) warheads'. So, if this is not a misinformation (or, let's say directly - if it is not a lie), - how many warheads can this payload accomodate, and how much powerful these warheads could be? For example, if we consider, that all the warheads must have a weight of 50 % of payload (approx. 600 kgs of 1200 kgs) - then, the single warhead must have a weight of 60 kilogramms (!)
Don't you think it's enough? How much powerful this warhead will be - 60 kt? 90 kt? 100 kt? And for what purposes missile with such a weak warheads can be used? To be just a 'city killer'? A weak 'spanker'?
- You wrote in your former message that 'from the grainy TV image', you can recognize in the RS-24 the 'good old' Topol-M... It is possible, of course. But, - do you really think, that you can recognize from the 'grainy TV image' an enlarged by 5 - 10 % diameter of missile? Enlarged diameter of it's 1st, 2nd or 3rd stage?
Can you agree that such a primitive measure as enlarging of missile diameter by a few percents, will give to constructors an additional propellant, and therefore, will:
(a) enlarge missile start weight (that's why the new mod of TEL was needed);
(b) enlarge the missile payload (additional throw-weight, enough for ten 100-kt warheads)?
Russian: Let me put it this way - it is silly to make any conclusions based on "official releases". They are notoriously unreliable.
If you believe that increasing launch weight or diameter of a missile by five-ten percent is not a big deal, it says only that you don't really understand the missile development process.
> Let me put it this way - it is silly to make any conclusions based on "official releases". They are notoriously unreliable.
- I don't think that such a key features, as a number of warheads, a modified TEL and classification of entire missile as a completely new type are 'notoriously unreliable'. It is silly to ignore such a pronounced signs...
> If you believe that increasing launch weight or diameter of a missile by five-ten percent is not a big deal (??? - is a big deal - ???), it says only that you don't really understand the missile development process.
- It's enough, for example, only increase the diameter of the second or third stage; Topol-M allows it easily;
- It is possible to use more energetic propellant;
- All above ways will lead to a bigger throw-weight, and then allows to install additional warheads.
- Pavel, if you're still loyal to the idea that 'RS-24 is just a Topol-M MIRVed', - let me show a possibilty to prove this your conclusion...
- OK, it's possible to install 10 warheads to the same Topol-M missile, but, - only in the case if warheads will take not 50 % of the Topol-M payload (1150 kgs), but more than 50 % of 1150 - 1200 kgs...
- For example, 10 warheads 90 kg each = 900 kg + 300 kg bus... 'Classical' proportion should be 600 kg warheads + 300 kg (for example) bus + 300 kg (for example) ABM passive and active supressors, jammers, dummy warheads etc...
- Remember the testing of K65-MR with new MIRVed bus in April 22, 2006, and especially measures of security around these testings?
- What if the bus tested on K65-MR, is the same intended for 'Topol-M MIRVed' (as you see RS-24), and this new bus has a very lite-weighted ABM penetration rigs, and as a 'boundary case' - what if all the passive rigs for ABM penetration, like radar jammers, dummy warheads etc., - was completely removed from the new bus, and TEN 'manoeuvrable warheads' of this bus, - is the only tool for ABM penetration?
- 'Passive ABM penetration' (when missile simple drops on the ABM defence as much rigs as it can) versus 'Active ABM penetration' (when manoeuvrable warheads go to the target without passive rigs but using a hardly-predictable trajectory)...
- Again, as you remember, the K65-MR has tested 'a re-entry vehicle for land-based and sea-launched intercontinental missiles and new missile defense penetration aids'.
Russian: I don't really have anything to add to my previous comment.
Just because a missile system is tested with ten warheads does not mean it will deploy operationally with such. The US Navy Trident was tested with a package of twelve MIRV warheads extensively but deployed only with eight. The eight W-76 or W-88 warheads gave Trident the perfect mix of range, accuracy, load, and penetrating aids. Later, downloading Trident to only five warheads actually improved the system because technical innovations with the RV package enhanced accuracy over the previous eight-warhead system. Lesser number of warheads meant greater range and additional room for penetrating aids.
Here’s what we know. RS-24 was tested from a TEL and can launch MIRV warheads. The system uses the same warhead as Bulava.
Here’s what we think. Makes sense the RS-24 will deploy with six warheads like the Bulava system. We have no clue on the actual yield of these warheads but logic says 100kts is about right. Therefore conclusion reached, the RS-24 is not a first strike weapon. Is the Kremlin committed to production in numbers? With the end of the SS-18 & 19’s in the 2018 timeframe, you would think this system will supersede the SS-27 to provide “numbers” to the Russian nuclear arsenal.
Here’s what we wonder. Is this system being build to compliment a future heavy liquid-fueled silo ICBM or is the days of such a “heavy” weapon system in the SRF at an end?
Another think we know about the RS-24, the United States doesn’t seem to care. Russia is no longer perceived as a threat; an enemy. Amazing what you can learn from a simple missile test.
Frank Shuler
USA
Solomonov speaks: wmv file
Gradient: Thank you. I posted it on YouTube. I hope it's okay.
As I understand, he basically confirms that it is Topol-M, but says that "half of the missile is new". I guess a new warhead section (with a new guidance system) would qualify.
So, as expected, RS-24 will be a sort of “Topol-M2”. This off course doesn’t exclude minor mass variations. I.e. we should not be surprised if its total weight is just over 50 tn. I think “half a new” missile will include something more than a new payload.
- OK, "half of the missile is new" - according to Yuri Solomonov.
- Well, Pavel, - don't you think that 50 % of changes is enough for serious mods, such as greater payload and greater (for example, by 10 %) - start weight?
[...]
Pavel ... seeing as I mentioned before in a prior comment ??? ... that Russia withdrew from its observance from START II in 2002 in response to the US ending its 1972 ABM obligations in 2002 - then why would it matter if it was an entirely new or an adaption of the Topol-M ... as far as MIRV type or total throw-weight to begin with? SORT does not have provisions on MIRV restriction, just a planned arsenal target at some point ... correct?
I seriously doubt a weight increase is possible, not to mention a 10% increase - it would be almost five tonnes. The START "new type" rule was there for a reason - this kind of change would require developing of a new missile, which RS-24 is not.
Comparison RS-24 (left) and Topol-M (right, launched in 2002):
http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/files/Stukalin/(070530160558)_rakety.jpg
Interesting pictures. But I would say they prove my point - if you scale them correctly, the missiles are the same. I posted my version of the image.
Sorry for a such generic name but i was searching an answer to the question - what is rs24?
Did anybody think about ss24?
If it is a highly modified version of this missile (using ss 27 tech) then it is ment to cary 10 mirv of proper first strike yeild and acuracy (old ss 24 was capable of this).
Also it could be a carry up from kyerer desighn, which was not put in production.
If topol m tech is used it could make it a very hard missile to intercept (laser protection, mirv thermal/mechanical protection, manevarable mirv with cooling(defeats most american am systems becouse they use ir terminal guidanse) also advanced jamming systems could be used (ie plasma stealth tech, invented in ussr, which kills radar aquisition).
After all reduced boost stage and anti ir measures could make it very hard to detect.
So if it IS deaply modified ss24
-mobile launchers( ss 24 was deployed in such)
-10 high yeild, high presision topol mirvs
-adeqative service live
-tech is availiable, there is experience in producing un modified missile.
minuses
-production in ukrane is out of question
so we have a nice (nearly perfect with todays tech)
first strike missile and nice retailation missile (the rairoad version is quit hard to find)
Sorry for speling
please corect me if i am mistaken