So, the deployment of MIRVed Topol will start during 2011 in the best case. Rigth? Do you think Pavel that the 3-warheads configuration will be deployed, or it is just a testing-phase payload?

I think the key date here is December 2009, when the START Treaty expires. So, we could see MIRVed Topol-M in the end of 2009. But in my view MIRVing Topol-M does not make any sense, whether now or in 2010.

Pavel:

The RS-24 makes no sense from a military perspective or from the political?

Sounds like the introduction of the mobile RS-24 shouldn't be expected until the 2011-12 time frame when testing is complete. I suppose this system will then replace the standard silo & mobile SS-27 in production. Has there ever been any Kremlin statement on how many RS-24 will be built?

Frank Shuler
USA

> Sounds like the introduction of the mobile RS-24 shouldn't be expected until the 2011-12 time frame when testing is complete.

- Look at video of 25.12.07 launch, and you'll see that RS-24 was tested from mobile TEL already.

Russian:

To clarify my statement, I was referring to the statement by Nikolay Solovtsov, commander of the Strategic Rocket Forces; “it will take about five more flight tests before the RS-24 missile can be deployed. Solovtsov expects that this process will take about three years.” Hence my conclusion regarding the 2011-12 time frame for its introduction.

My understanding is that the RS-24 is only a “mobile ICBM system”. Are you suggesting this missile will also be silo based?

Frank Shuler
USA

There has bein some information about new heavy weight ICBM that will enter serial production in 2017 .. I guess that one will replace SS-18 and SS-19 has anyone more information about that missile?

To Viktor: NPOMash has been lobbying for a new UR-100NUTTH-type missile.

> To Viktor: NPOMash has been lobbying for a new UR-100NUTTH-type missile.

- It's not a single option. Reincarnation of SS-24 'Scapel' (100-tonn class solid-fuelled carrier with 4000 kg payload), - is possible, too.

> My understanding is that the RS-24 is only a "mobile ICBM system". Are you suggesting this missile will also be silo based?

- If 'Topol-M' is not a 'mobile only' system, why it's cousine (RS-24), - should be 'mobile only'?

- So, RS-24 will be a 'primary mobile' ICBM, and secondary, - silo-based one.

In other words, RSF will be able to easily deploy RS-24, in both above revisions.

- Why RS-24 starts from mobile rev? Well, RSF has enough heavy-class carriers still staying in their silos (such as SS-18 and SS-19), but mobile SS-25 Topol's will surely needs some replace in the following 5 or 7 years...

I doubt very much that RT-23UTTH (SS-24) could be revived in any form. Who will be doing it? Yuzhmash?

As for RS-24, retrofitting silo-based Topol-Ms with MIRVs would certainly be possible after START Treaty expires. But I don't think it's likely.

> I doubt very much that RT-23UTTH (SS-24) could be revived in any form. Who will be doing it? Yuzhmash?

- Pavel, you don't understand my main idea: not 'SS-24 revival', but 'SS-24 ideology revival'.

- Of course, it could be a brand new carrier, may be based primary on 'Topol-M' technology, - but close in it's main specs to SS-24, i.e.:

(a) Carrier of 100-tonn class;
(b) Solid-fueled, silo-based carrier;
(с) Carrier with a throw weight somewhere between 2500 and 4000 kilogramms.

- As to your joke question about such a carrier manufacturing, - we all needs to understand that 'Yuzhmash', will never manufacture brand new strategic carriers for Russia, at least until the time when East Ukraine will be reunited with Russia (and the last is a very uncertain prospective); but, MITT and Votkinsky plant seems to be able to develop and produce such a heavy carrier, in the following 10 years, - or you'll prefer to say, - they're not?

- There's plans to restore productions on Votkinsky plant up to the Soviet era scales (i.e., up to 100 missiles of all classes per year); I think, we will see in the following two or three years, increasing of production at Votkinsk, firstly up to 14 - 16 ICBMs per year, and then, - up to 30 and even 40 ICBMs per year.

- Russia have only 5 or 7 years, to replace 222 mobile 'Topols' on 100 - 200 mobile 'Topol-Ms' and / or RS-24s, so we need to produce (30 - 50) Topol-M's and RS-24's per year.

- A question of production of bigger amounts of ICBMs at Votkinsk, - is not a problem of this plant solely; Votkinsk really ready to increase production drastically, when all the infrastructure of spare parts and raw materials suppliers will be restored (as a partial but important example, - when private manufacturer of carbon monothread will returned under the state control).

> As for RS-24, retrofitting silo-based Topol-Ms with MIRVs would certainly be possible after START Treaty expires. But I don't think it's likely.

- I agreed, that retrofitting of existing Topol-Ms is rather unlikely, - because Russia needs a balanced mix of single-warhead Topol-Ms, equipped with powerful 550-kt warheads, and three- or even six-warhead RS-24s, with smaller warheads (6 x 100 kT or 3 x 200 kT).

And this all is based on what? Sorry, but I don't see how any of this "SS-24 ideology", "heavy missiles produced at Votkinsk", or "balanced mix" stuff deserves serious discussion.

to Russian:
Could you pls refer to that "video of 25.12.07 RS-24 launch"? Thanks in advance.
best regards

Russian:

I can only agree with your last conclusion:

” I agreed, that retrofitting of existing Topol-Ms is rather unlikely, - because Russia needs a balanced mix of single-warhead Topol-Ms, equipped with powerful 550-kt warheads, and three- or even six-warhead RS-24s, with smaller warheads (6 x 100 kT or 3 x 200 kT).”

Such a balanced ICBM force is both affordable and practical.

If such a “heavy” silo ICBM will come in the future to “replace” the SS-19 & SS-18 fleet, it will be liquid fueled and from the NPOMash group. That decision will be political and not military. It may make some sense to have another design bureau in the mix. However, I’ll wager the “future” ICBM silo fleet will remain single warhead weapons.

President, soon to be Prime Minister, Putin has publicly stated the future annual production of Russian ICBMs to be six to eight. I don’t think you will ever see a return to old Soviet days where so much national resources were tied up in ICBM production. Russia has too many other needs; conventional weapons, communications and space assets. Russia today has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined. Yet, those weapons seem to buy her little prestige. I think in the future, Russia will invest far more kopeks in weapons that can actually be “used” rather than weapons that only serve as a “deterrent”.

Just my opinion.

Frank Shuler
USA

Dear Bernd:

- Tell me the file-exchanger, suitable for you, and I'll upload the video (6 MB in size).

> I can only agree with your last conclusion:

- Dear Frank: as I can see from inside the Russia, the new paradigm of modern Russian military, - is a enough balance or even full balance with USA, in strategic nuclear forces.

- Our states already have an agreement in 'number of warheads deployed' (I mean 2200 warheads limitations for both Russia and USA), but there's at least two quantitative parameters that will be considered as critical in terms of strategic balance, - these parameters are:

(a) Number of carriers (delivery platforms for the warheads);
(b) Total throw weight for all delivery platforms.

- I doubt Russia can achieve balance with USA in above options without revival of heavy-class or middle-class carriers (ICBMs with throw weight of 2,5 - 4,0 tonns), or at least, without massive production of light single-warhead Topol-M's. Second way (massive production of Topol-M's) looks more expensive and provocative, than the first one (revival of heavy carriers).

- As I understand, USA will migrate in the following next years:

(a) From 500 Minuteman-III's, -> to 450 ones;
(b) From 13 subs of Ohio class, -> to 8 or 9 ones;

(If I wrong, please correct me).

- I offer to you, to count the throw weight and number of delivery platforms for this 'reduced' US strategic forces, considering also 2200 warheads limitation; with these numbers 'on hands', we'll be able to prognose better, the future of Russian strategic nuclear forces.

Russian:

Of course all this is opinion but let’s take a look at the American position now and interpolate the future. Today, the US deploys 500 silo Minuteman III ICBMs. (to fall to 450 if our Congress approves) These missiles deployed since 1970 are now expected to remain in service until replacement in 2028. (where they will be 58 years in service). Our strategic bomber force is composed of 76 B-52 (to fall to 56 if our Congress approves) bombers (the last entered service in 1962) and 16 B-2 Spirit stealth aircraft. The United States Air Force wants a new bomber in 2018 but it remains to be seen if this new aircraft will be designed to carry nuclear weapons (the prevailing opinion today is that this platform will be unmanned and not certified to carry nuclear weapons). The Trident fleet is 14 boats with 12 deployable and armed with the only new missile now being purchased, the Lockheed Trident D5. To recap, the United States Air Force (USAF) wants a new bomber in 2018, a new ICBM in 2028, and Trident is expected to be replaced in 2038 when the newest submarine, the USS Louisiana (SSBN 743), will be 41 years old. I’ll let you draw your conclusions how this affects Russian security in the future.

Even today, without the benefit of treaty the US has removed the most accurate ICBM from its inventory, the MX Peacekeeper and is withdrawing its most affective cruise missile, the stealthy ACM.

I respect your opinion and look forward to your conclusions.

Frank Shuler
USA

to Pavel:
One stupid question about "Reincarnation of SS-24".
As far as I know this system was retreated only a couple of years ago. What were the reasons for that...and wouldn't it be possible to re-install this mighty and impressive system (at least as railway system) and to care for maintenance by Russian companies - or did Russia realy rely on Ukraine companies to keep "those big missiles" running?
Greetings from bernd

Dear Russian:
Unfortunately I'm too stupid to know what a "file -exchanger" exactly means. Would it be possible to attach this clip to an e-mail? My address is reutersanders@aol.com - if this is not possible..thank you anyhow and have a pleasant new year!

Bernd: I don't see how it would be possible to resume production or development of SS-24-type missile. Russian design bureaus have their own projects to peddle.

Video of the RS-24 launch id availabe on Vesti.ru. As for video exchange, YouTube is a convenient service.

Dear Pavel:

> I don't see how it would be possible to resume production or development of SS-24-type missile.

- Again: not 'to resume production of SS-24'. To develop a new missile of the same, with SS-24, class!

> Russian design bureaus have their own projects to peddle.

- And where the reason 'not to develop' middle-class (4 tonns / 100 tonns) solid-fuelled missile? Why among the projects of 'Russian design bureaus' should not be such a missile?

- Pavel, do you seriously think that big silos of Satans and Stilletos will be destroyed, - or will stay empty, - or will be filled with 'light-class' missiles (i.e. Topol-M's and RS-24's)???

- And few words in Russian, - for better understanding:

- Павел, Вы должны понимать, что пора бардака 90-х в России, практически закончилось. Государство, - нынешнее государство, - способно заставить любое конструкторское бюро заниматься полезным для государства и общества делом, а не только лоббировать свои (КаБэшные), - узкие интересы и проекты. Очень советую Вам впредь, не сбрасывать со счетов этот фактор, иначе Ваши расчеты и выводы, - будут несколько... неточны. :-)

To Russian: As I said, I don't see how any of this stuff about "SS-24-class missile" or "the Russian state that can force design bureaus do 'useful work'" deserves a serious discussion.

Dear Pavel,

- Are data of START MOU (Memorandum Of Understanding) of January 1, 2008, already available?

- It seems that 'spam filters' at Pavel's blog, again disalllowed my yesterday message, containing links in traditional format; so, I'll repeat this message again, replacing standard hypertext prefix with '_' sign:

To Berndt:

> what a "file-exchanger" exactly means

- Well-known "file-exchanger" is rapidshare.com

- I've sent some video files to your mail at aol.com

To all interested:

- I've made an upload of some videos and graphics of my collection, to rapidshare.com:

_rapidshare.com/files/80407616/Navy.Ru_-_RSM-52_SSN-20_R-39_Testing.wmv.html

_rapidshare.com/files/80407772/Navy.Ru_-_RSM-54_SSN-23_R-29RM_Launch_071217.flv.html

_rapidshare.com/files/80407840/Navy.Ru_-_RSM-54_SSN-23_R-29RM_Launch_071225.flv.html

_rapidshare.com/files/80409365/Nukes.Ru_-_RS-24_Launch_071225.asf.html

_rapidshare.com/files/80409462/Navy.Ru_-_RSM-xx_SSN-xx_R-xx_Families.png.html

_rapidshare.com/files/80409546/Navy.Ru_-_Some_Pics_-_Q407.zip.html

To all people of good will:

- Happy New Year and Peace!

The MOU data won't be released to the public until April 2008.

To Russian: Thank you for the videos, although I must say that rapidshare is quite inconvenient. I posted the videos on YouTube - here is the link.

> I posted the videos on YouTube - here is the link.

- As you wish. But, you better tell us about 'strange start' ;-) of R-39...

- Hint: could be the 'ICE' a keyword for explanation of this 'strange start'? :-)

Happy new year and thank you (Russian and Pavel) for the videos!
Two question about the R-29RM Tests: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdazUvdWbTc)-
1./ there is a short sequence in it which shows this (naval) missile on a MAZ 547 - is this for transport services only or does a land-based mobile version exist?
2./ a "Typhoon Class" is seen in the background. As far as I know R-29RM Sineva is a modification of SS-N-23 which fits to Delta IV type SSBN.
Does this mean that TK 208 was modified to test not only "Bulava" but the shorter R-29RM too?
Thanks for any response.
Greetings from bernd

Bernd: Don't read too much into the images shown on Russian TV - they could easily show Project 941 submarine in a story about Sineva missile or a Topol/SS-25 missile (or short-range Iskander) in a story about a RS-24 launch.

> 1. there is a short sequence in it which shows this (naval) missile on a MAZ 547 - is this for transport services only or does a land-based mobile version exist?

If we are talking about report at youtube.com/watch?v=mdazUvdWbTc :

- In the last part of report, commentator talks about anniversary of Strategic Rocket Forces, so they're showing the mobile 'Topol' TEL, when commentator is speaking 'Also, today the Startegic Rocket Forces celebrate their 48th anniversary...'

- So, Berndt, you misunderstand the report - there's no signs of 'a land-based mobile version' of Sineva in it; to understand report properly, you need to learn Russian language.

> 2. a "Typhoon Class" is seen in the background. As far as I know R-29RM Sineva is a modification of SS-N-23 which fits to Delta IV type SSBN.

- Yes, you're right, - and commentator in the first part of report tells that 'Sineva' 'were launched from the 'Tula' nuclear cruising submarine'; "Typhoon" class sub in the following part of report, shown as a neutral background to the words.

to Russian:
Thanks for helping me to understand that videos!
Of course my problem is that unfortunately I don't speak Russian!
But I wouldn't mention "no.1" if it would be a "normal" Topol MAZ. It isn't. The MAZ 547 never was used for Topol (let away RS-14). Many of them remain in Russian Service from "the good old days" of RSD-10 Pioneer.
But this MAZ is not carring a Topol. And regarding the fact that 51T6 is withdrawn from service I made the mistake to assume a sort of transport canister for R-29RM...
But again - thank you for your explanations!
Cheers

Maybe I missed it with all these comments, but they also launched a Sineva. Here is the report from Agentstvo Voyennykh Novostey:

On 25 December Russia test launched two intercontinental ballistic missiles, a submarine-based Sineva (also known as RSM-54 and SS-N-23 Skiff) and an RS-24, Interfax-AVN news agency reports. [...] In 2007 Russia has launched a total of nine intercontinental ballistic missiles: two RS-24s, two RS-12M Topol missiles, one RS-18 Stiletto, two Sineva missiles and two Bulava missiles, one of which failed.

I wrote about the launch of Sineva in another entry.

By the way, it is interesting that the report mentioned two Bulava launches one of which failed - this was not generally reported in the Russian media before.