There are a couple of NICE videos of that launch up on Youtube.

Here is one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB-vtc-d0Cg

Wow! That is a fantastic video sequence! Thanks for posting! I'm always impressed by the acceleration of the SS-18, but then again, given it's unusually high (for an ICBM) thrust-to-weight ratio of 2 to 1, I guess its not surprising. Russia would do well to maintain these fearsome deterrents for as long as possible, and then replace them with a new liquid fuel heavy ICBM.

I would think ss-19 is more feasible if only for it is a newer missile and not as dependent on Ukrainian "co-operation". If am not mistaken ss-19 used to be made by Polyot which is now part of Khrunichev, very doable. In other times I've question the probabilities of say the "likely -hood of re-starting production of mig-29(35 now) or Tu-160" and at some time was told by expert opinion that the likely-hood of Russia re-starting"anything" was REMOTE. How time changes things..............
However, in Topol-obseced Russian I wouldn't hold my breath for anything but the Topol-M Mirved. RS-24 or whatever it's called is all their getting or so it seems right now. Just my 2 cents.

Is Russia planing to build new liquid ICBM like SS-18 ?

Pavel:
Would it be feasable to apply Angara technology(propulsion) to ss-19 Stiletto? I'm saying this in order to keep killers enviromentally friendly, but heck if push comes to shove I'll keep 'em just the way they are. Any chances of a re-start? I love speculation keeps boredom at bay.

I;m sorry I forgot to ask one more question. Has any "civilian" project ever sparked a military one? ie: I'm betting my condo Angara will spark the newest military rocket for Russia. Odds anyone?

Boris

The key issue with Angara technology transfer would be the fact that it uses LOX and Kerosene and I don't know if the technology is easily adaptable to storable liquid propellant (N2O4, UDMH), The upgraded engines used in the newest version of Proton would be a more likely candidate. (Of course, the Proton is originally a super heavy ICBM design itself) Either way, a brand new storable liquid propellant engine could be made to be very efficient, and it will always be significantly more efficient than solid propellant, especially in terms of specific impulse.

With all the talk here of "new" SS-19s or retaining refurbished SS-18s, do we think arms control between Russia and the United States is at an end? I'm curious if anyone thinks there will be a follow-up to the SORT (Moscow) Treaty? Or, will both sides settle in at the 2200 level long-term? Or, will there be an increase to these numbers in a new "arms race" in the future, post-2012?

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank

I doubt that anyone in Russia is thinking of increasing the number of warheads after 2012 - there is simply too much other things to spend money on. Russian army may be the world's No2 army in the sence of what it can achieve millitarily, but how it does that (great distruction, human loss, unpresision and outdated weapons,...) doesn't put her in the top. As said many time on this blog, in any practical confrontation, every side will restrain of use of nuclear weapons, so they remain just a deterent, which is itself questionable. Russia needs to invest in a way to respond to modern challenges, modify its army and find a way to respond to threats in other ways then increasing the number of ICBMs. It was once proven that the logic of simple numbers and Cold War arming cannot be in the favour of Russia. They have to find some other way, some "assymetrical answers".

Back to the topic, I think that Russia needs follow-on agreement more then the U.S and I am very interested in how interested at all will the U.S. be... If the follow-on comes, I doubt it will be as "strict" as START. America has no reason left to let's say allow inspections of its facilities. It might be some general contract. Knowing about ABM shield, it is doubtfull that it would come to any START type discussions about un-MIRVing ICBMs and so on... This is all IMO. I am curious to see the outcome.

Ivan

I completely agree with your conclusions. I now think SORT will go away in January 2013 and not be replaced with a meaningful agreement like START. I think the inventories of both the United States and Russia will find their natural balance and that will be that. The politicians will give speeches on "arms control" but little will be done. I think the American arsenal will fall to around 4000 nuclear devices regardless of what Russia does; both sides have other things to spend their defense dollars on.

Frank Shuler
USA

I believe that even without any new limitation treaties, Russia's arsenal will continue to decrease in size. Even only 800 warheads of the 550KT MARV type would be a respectable deterrent, as long as there were at least 800 launchers. With higher yields, the number could go down even further while still maintaining MAD deterrence levels. I can envision a force of 120 silo-based R36M2-sized ICBM's with single ~60MT "clean" MARV's targeting cities, and 380 mobile Topol-sized ICBM's with single ~1MT MARV's for large military and industrial targets, resulting in a nuclear weapons grand total of 500 warheads and 500 launchers. No SLBM's and no nuclear armed IRBM's or cruise missiles would be neccesary, since this would be a deterrent-only force. This kind of force, in my view, would be much more affordable for Russia and at the same time, through the elimination of tactical nukes and MIRVed ICBM's, allow it to take the lead in drastic nuclear weapon reductions without sacrificing its deterrent capability (and quite possibly, improve its deterrent effectiveness and survivability).

Jon Grams

To play the “devil’s advocate”, what do you think the American response would be to such a Russian strategic disposition? Remember, no decision is made in a vacuum.

I respect your opinions and look forward to your response.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank

My first inclination is to think that the US would not change its strategic force makeup in response, primarily because now the US would have a greater than 10 to 1 numerical superiority in nuclear weapons, and would not be facing any kind of "first strike" threat because of the elimination of Russian SSBN's. If anything, the US would be under huge international pressure to reduce its arsenal accordingly. It would be a win-win situation for Russia. The reason why I don't suggest the US adopt this strategic approach, is because it never will. The continued US interest in small "usable" nuclear weapons, and intentions to reduce the yields of the weapons it already has precludes such a policy. The US is not interested in deterrence-specific nuclear weapons because they are the one thing that keeps Russia on even strategic footing. This is why I think the US has broken the ABM treaty; for the sole reason of undermining the last obstacle to US global hegemony; Russia's strategic nuclear forces.

"Our strategy (after the fall of the Soviet Union) must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor"

-1992 US Defense Planning Guidance

...right from the horses mouth

Jon Grams

There are two kinds of nuclear weapons in the American arsenal. There are nuclear weapons that are designed never to be used unless deterrence fails and the United States has been struck, such as Minuteman and Trident. And, there are nuclear weapons that might indeed be used in a preemptive manner, such as would be the case with B-61 or B-83 gravity bombs and the B-2 Stealth Bomber. I think future American nuclear policy decisions will be based less on what Russia does than in the historical past. Let’s face it, Russia isn’t the old Soviet Union; no matter how much fond reminiscing is going on today. Moscow is only one player in the international nuclear club and US policy must account long-term for emerging “peer powers” in the 21st Century. I don’t see Russia and the US entering into a new arms race in the nuclear arena. Once both sides have a deterrent, such weapons become meaningless militarily. At that point, nuclear weapons are more a political tool than a military weapon.

Russia today is building new strategic submarines armed with the Bulava SLBM, new SS-27 Topol-M and RS-24 ICBMs and the new strategic cruise missile, the Kh-102. There may even be a future successor to the liquid-fueled SS-19. Why? The answer is simple and hardly sinister. The aging post-Soviet inventory of strategic weapon systems are at risk of technological obsolescence. Today, Russia is building new weapons to only “recover” deterrence with America. Whether this re-arming is necessary or even relative will require time for history to judge.

While Russia is rebuilding its nuclear inventories, the United States is investing in new 21st Century conventional weapons and technology such as ballistic missile defense systems, new exotic satellites for intelligence gathering and communications, and precision strike weapons. History will have to judge the future success of these decisions too.

Frank Shuler
USA

Why is Ukrainian help required to maintain missiles? What is the issue, technical know-how?

What about SS-X-26?This missile was not myth.It would be solid-fuel sucessor of SS-18. Pavel, you have any information on this project?.

If I remember correctly, Kurier was known as SS-X-26 at the time. I doubt it was ever considered a "successor of SS-18", though.

I talking not about Kurier.I hear rumours about this missile and seen Cia dec.est.about this missile.It would be solid-fueled ICBM with payloud of 12 tons and was under designation SS-X-26.And I even hear that TopolM nuke was 1.5 Mt clean design and these missile could carry at least 10 of these and these would be true first-strike weapon with no collateral damage.Kurier was a ret.weapon with dirty 400 or 500 kt warhead ,this design was tested in.in atmosph. and later undegr. and first deployed on SS-13 and later became most num.USSR str.warhead. For history:largest solid-fuel ICBM was(were?) USAF stud.ICBM conf.using Aerojet 260 inch solid engine,engine was built.But weapons that they int. to carry were not test. due "change of course"(simpy due Mcnamara ,Taylor and etc.),they think that very high yield weapons have not mil.value.Data vague,but it seems that these were clusters of 100mt(20,000 pounds) clean weapons,not ment.1000mt design,this was only design.I believe that cost of these systems + silos was less than Viethnam war.
And may I ask you about SS-9mod 5(ASAT).What a nuke it sup.to carry ?

I'm quite certain nothing of the things you describe ever existed.

"A May 1959 Air Force briefing revealed some "possible military uses of
the Orion Vehicle",," including reconnaissance and early-warning,
electronic countermeasures ("possible to get a terrific number of
jammers over a given area"), anti-ICBM ("possibility of putting many
eary intercept missiles in orbit awaiting use"), and "ICBM, orbital,
or deep space weapons - orders of magnitude increase in warhead
weights -clustered warheads - launch platforms, etc." Finally,
there was "the Horrible weapon - 1,650 ton continent -buster hanging
over the enemy's head as a deterrent"."Project Orion.The true story of atomic Spaceship."By George Dyson(Freeman's son).
So ,so many things existed.