The missile division in Kozelsk, which included 60 UR-100NUTTH (SS-19) missiles, is being liquidated. According to a report that quotes a representative of the division, the missiles are being moved to the division storage site (RTB) and it is expected that all missiles will be removed from service by the end of 2007. [UPDATE 09/11/07: It appears that only one regiment will be removed from service this year.]
The UR-100NUTTH missile is a silo-based liquid-fuel missile that carries six 400 kt warheads. The UTTH modification of the missile has greater accuracy than its predecessor, UR-100N, deployed in mid-1970s. Flight tests of UR-100NUTTH were conducted in 1977-1979 and deployment began in 1979. In 1985, at the peak of deployment, the Soviet Union had 360 UR-100NUTTH missiles, which completely replaced previously deployed UR-100N (190 of which had been deployed by 1979; all these missiles were removed from service by 1983). There were reports about a single-warhead modification of UR-100NUTTH, but it appears that it was never operationally deployed.
The breakup of the Soviet Union left Russia with 170 UR-100NUTTH missiles deployed in Kozelsk and Tatishchevo (60 and 110 missiles respectively). 130 missiles remained at two bases in Ukraine - in Pervomaysk (40) and Khmelnitskiy (90). By that time the Rocket Forces were in the process of replacing some of UR-100NUTTH missiles in silos at Tatishchevo and Pervomaysk with the silo-based version of RT-23UTTH (SS-24) missile.
Ukraine, in addition to the missiles that were deployed there (and which had been eliminated by the end of 1990s) had about 30 UR-100NUTTH missiles in storage. These "dry" missiles were transferred to Russia in 2002-2004 (the information about the actual number of missiles involved is somewhat contradictory). At some point in 2005, the Rocket Forces stated their intent to deploy these missiles, which could be kept in service until about 2020-2030. It is not clear if these plans have been reconsidered - Russia may still have an option of deploying them in Tatishchevo (only 20 of the currently available 60+ UR-100NUTTH silos are expected to be taken by silo-based Topol-M by 2015).
Although Russia's current missile development plans are focused on solid-propellant missiles - Topol-M (including its MIRVed RS-24 version) ICBM and Bulava SLBM, plans to develop new-generation liquid-fuel missile still exist. Gerbert Efremov, the General Designer of NPO Mashinostroyeniya, the developer of UR-100N family of missiles, argues that Russia needs to build a "new powerful liquid-fuel missile, with a launch mass of about 100 tonnes" (the launch mass of UR-100NUTTH is about 106 tonnes), which would be deployed after 2015 in about 100 silos currently occupied by R-36MUTTH/R-36M2 (SS-18) missiles. It appears that this plan does not have support of the current Russian leadership, but at the same time the issue is still being discussed. Yuri Solomonov, the General Designer of the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology, in a recent interview mentioned his strong opposition to the plan (see also earlier signs of the controversy).
The book
Comments
This is expected event. Gen. Solovtsov spoke about it in February.
It is necessary to understand precisely, that while ("by the end of 2007") it is a question not about all Kozelsk missile division, but only obout 1 regiment (ONE OF SIX!!! regiments) of Kozelsk base.
Thank you. I updated the entry. Yes, it felt unusual that the whole division would be liquidated in one year. One regiment sounds about right.
I don't know what Gen. Solovtsov's argument is against a new liquid fuel SS-19 replacement, but I would hope for Russia's sake that he is overridden. Russia knows better than anyone the numerous advantages of storable liquid over solid fuel, and an ICBM with the throw weight of the SS-19 would add strategic flexibility and options for multiple 550KT MARV's or larger single MARV's (5MT+)and even a FOBS(Fractional orbital bombing system) payload. This would be far superior to a MIRVed version of the TOPOL-M.
If building a new large ICBM at all, wouldn´t it make more sense to design something like the MX or RT-23? No dangerous liquids, no complicated engines, pumps and so on.
Martin
Rigth, better a new Molodets rather than a new UR-100. Nevertheless, the work should go to Makeyev. MITT is currently taking it all.
Gerbert Efremov is correct in saying that SS-19 should be replaced by an equally heavy liquid fuelled missile for the mere reason that it is better for storage and has also longer life. As Jon Grams put it this missile will give Russia several options for MIRVing or carrying more advanced missiles.
The Russian leadership must supplement the missile force of a few solid fueled Topol M's with several of the liquid fueled new missiles as U.S. can still develop counter to Topol M's in due course of time. The shear nos. will act as deterrent.
It has been generally reported that the service life of both the SS-19 and the larger SS-18 will end around 2018 and the missiles will be retired. Speculation has always centered on the 30 or so Ukrainian SS-19s returned to Russia. These missiles had never been loaded or fueled and were being held as strategic reserves. Would they be installed in existing SS-19 silos to extend the life of the fleet post 2018? I have always thought not. Is it feasible for Russia to develop a SS-18/19 replacement in the next ten years? Would such a development cycle interfere with SS-27 deliveries? RS-24? I would argue whether there is actually a need for such a weapon system in today’s world but the real question is the pursuit of such a missile practical?
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank,
There have been some observations by defence analysts in U.S. that Russia will not have more than about 500 missiles in the foreseeable future and the U.S. will be in a position to overwhelm Russia with a single preventive strike. This only shows that although the Administration projects a benign interaction between Russia and U.S. there is a high ndercurrent of suspicion when it comes to defense planning. Russia cannot ignore this fact.
KA Sharma:
The Kremlin must anticipate all risks and take all precautions necessary defending Russia against any threat. This is role of any nation’s military and is completely understood. While Russia has struggled to build the SS-27 Topol-M in numbers and is introducing the RS-24 road mobile ICBM, should it expend resources, budget and materials, to field yet another class of ICBM? That is the interesting question. Perhaps those resources could be better directed in timely fielding the RS-24 in greater numbers?
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank,
I get your point. But is RS-24 a multiple warhead missile of MARV warheads or simply ballistic warheads is not clear. If these are ballistic, then U.S. anti-missiles will easily counter them unless these are in very large nos. Thus Russia has to think whether it is better to produce a large no. of these missiles or develop new missiles.
I think Russia should abandon any "grandiosse" pursuits of aircraft carriers(including the Kuzhnetsov junk) and concentrate their efforts on an ss-19 follow on. The reasons for a Molodetz variation are better, but politically and in numbers wise the ur-100 is a workhorse. If Khrunichev's team can somehow sell this follow on version with say the same propellants as being used for Angara, could that be feasable?
> If Khrunichev's team can somehow sell this follow on version with say the same propellants as being used for Angara, could that be feasable?
- Boris, 'Angara' operates on a [liquid oxygen (LOX)] - [kerosene] redox pair... ICBM can't stay at silo for years filled with LOX... ;-)
RV weight of UR-100N was 210 kg,so i cannot understand 400kt yield in 100-110kg weight.Highest possible yield obtainable in 350 pounds (158.4 kg)-300kt-this data from much higher source than Kataeyv's papers.
I would be very skeptical about UR-100NUTTH RV having the weight of 210 kg. This would not be supported by any data. And I don't see where anybody mentions a 100 kg warhead with 400 kt yield.
This data on RV weight from Chelaybinsk-70 museum.(Sic.-former Chelaybinsk-70) ,the RV(MRV) weight of UR-100 was 170kg,also deployed on 64 r-29.I believe that warhead was same. Katayev also stated a 6.6-6.9mt single warhead for R-36P, but this is wrong, R-36P was actually MRV missile and this warheads were 2.2-2.3mt in yield. 1425 kg was RV weight,this warhead was warhead firstly for R-16 and R-9 missiles, also considered for GR-1, UR-500 (six MRV variant) and even for Rascat -N11GR (six orbital MIRVs, weighing 8750kg each). Also this warhead was used in NGB entered in production around 1963. RT-2, MR-100, R-36m/muuth, RDS-10, R-31, 400kt RV weighing 370kg. So warhead weight would be 200, and in fact I believe yield was doubled by replacing u-238 pusher by u-235 pusher. Plutonium of any grade would give even larger yield, but probably never used in TN weapons. In fact with increase weight of device yield-to weight also increased. For multigigaton weapons ratios would reach around 20mt per metric ton.
"Very high source" that I'm cited is Bethe report.
I don't see anything here that would contradict what we already know. Katayev lists the UR-100 MRV warhead yield as 220 kt, which is in line with other data. I don't know where did you get the 6.6-6.9 MT number - in Katayev's papers R-36orb warhead yield is listed as 2.3 MT(see Table 1). It is also in line with other data if it weighed 1425 kg.
Just to make it clear - these are all RV weights. The actual nuclear charge weight is, of course, smaller.
P.S. Your comments would be a lot easier to read if you don't disregard punctuation (spaces, mostly).
I mean yield for this warhead 2.2-2.3mt from various sources with RV weight 1425kg. This is in fact was warhead of R-16(3 and 6mt were CIA estimates,later they added more heavier warhead with 5mt) and R-9A. This warhead also considered for various other systems as I'm listed above,plus for weapons I'm not listed,such as Chelomei's orbital bombers.
I mean that V.L.Katayev give a total megatonnage on R-36P but this was not single warhead of 6.6-6.9 megatons but these missiles were MRV with 3 rv of 1425kg weight and 2.2-2.3mt yield and total throw-weight was 5.5 tonnes not 5.825 as with 8F675,401kg was weight of LIST decoys .
Even CIA estimates give a right number-12 missiles deployed with 3 MRV and close estimate of weight of RV-3500 pounds.Warhead weight would be undoubtely-1100-1150kg with fraction of RV weight around 80%.OR-36 also used this warhead with special stage-8FO21.And by some data 18 OR-36 were in arms up to end of 1983 not 1979.
Also this warhead was used in one of two main Soviet strategic NGBs,carried by TU-95A/MA and 3M/m4 and likely some TU-16A (however data sug. that main fleet was aimed on Europe with 200 kiloton bombs).Another bomb was 4.2 mt in yield,its warhead never been deployed on any ICBM.
Weight of light RV (8F674) was 2852kg ,so with 8.2-8.3 megatons weight of warhead would be 2050-2100 kg.Throw-weight of R-36 with this warhead was 3950kg.
Weight of heavy RV (8F675) was 4560 kg.It interesing to estimate warhead weight.Feoktistov said that weight of warhead A604G-this was its designation was increased by 5 percents with not increase of yield and he not crideted it with 20mt.For me most reasonable estimate for its true weight (before increase)-3750kg,yield -15 megatons-10 to small,20 to large.It may be that it was designed to be 15 megatons but test yield was 19.1 megatons (oficial Minatom data),but this data give a yield of larger than 10 megatons for same warhead of Arzamas-16 origin (competitor proposal,designer Kozlov).And this data give a yield of 21.1mt for clean version of UR-500 warhead,but its full yield version stated to be after several months from test 30 megatons when Chelomei presented military variant of UR-500 to Soviet political-military leadership.(CIA estimates that UR-500 would be carrier of 100mt warhead were based on estimation of weight of Tsar bomba-17500 pounds,this estimation was based on one LLNL very high-yield design in 1962 ,ironic but media even today still claims that UR-500 would be carrier of Tsar bomba).
So with RV weight of 12200 kg warhead would be 7500kg.So for a604G best estimates would be 3750 kg and 15 megatons.This warhead still sited in classified part of museum ,may be some of them deployed even today on R-36M2-s.I'm mostly interested in nuclear weapons,not even carriers for them,but I'm hear rumors that dispersional biological warhead was developed for R-36.What about this information?
For UR-100 MRV (170kg) and UR-100n/nuuth Mirv (210kg) i mean that warhead was same -220kt.
For example Mirv warhead for RT-23/uuth was third and TESTED in 1984 (Arzamas-16 design) at yield Minatom reported 20-150kt,other source reported 80 kilotons-probably in clean form and full form also use u-235 pusher.
Interesting that throw weight of R-36M with 8F675 was 6565 kg (now under designation 15F141 ,whether or not RV was hardened to various damage factors-another question,plus of course more decoys were added).8f674 receive new destination-15B86 and R-36M throw weight with its was 5727kg(probably more space was used for decoys).According to Katayev this variant never been deployed.But weapons were in stockpile as late as 1988 such as plans existed to deploy them on R-36M2-s.
I'm not sure I understood your point completely. I may have to look at the data more closely. In any event, I see no reason to doubt Katayev's numbers.