After the launch of an SLBM from the Ryazan submarine on August 1, 2008 the Navy for some reason did not announce the type of the missile. Even though it was unlikely that the missile was anything but R-29R, the reason for this secrecy was unclear. Now the Makeyev Design Bureau confirmed that it was an RSM-50/R-29R missile. However, as it was suspected, it was a somewhat unusual missile - according to the report, it carried a "modified instrumentation section". It's not quite clear at this point what that means but I hope we'll find out.
UPDATE 08/05/08: I checked the post on the previous R-29RM launch - at the time the Navy said that the test had something to do with "reliability of the command and control system". Which makes me wonder if this is what the "modified instrumentation section" was all about.
The book
Comments
Pavel, just out of curiosity, do we know the last time an R-29R (SS-N-18) was operationally tested? That answer might give us an indication as to the general status of the R-29R missile system and the Delta III submarine force.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank: It was in August 2007.
Shortlist of testing:
Delta IV (K-114 Tula) - R-29RMU Sineva (December 25, 2007)
Delta IV (K-114 Tula) - R-29RMU Sineva (December 17, 2007)
Delta IV (K-84 Ekaterinburg) - R-29RM Sineva (September 9, 2006)
Delta IV (K-114 Tula) - R-29RM Sineva (June 30, 2006)
Delta IV (K-84 Ekaterinburg) - R-29RM Sineva with COMPASS-2 sat (May 29, 2006)
Delta IV (K-84 Ekaterinburg) - R-29RM Sineva (August 17, 2005)
Delta IV (K-84 Ekaterinburg) - R-29RM Sineva (September 8, 2004)
Delta IV (K-84 Ekaterinburg) - R-29RM Sineva (June 29, 2004)
Delta IV (K-407 Novomoskovsk) - R-29RM Sineva doublet (March 17, 2004)
Delta IV (K-18 Karelia) - FAILURE R-29RM Sineva (February 18, 2004)
Delta IV (K-407 Novomoskovsk) - FAILURE R-29RM Sineva (February 17, 2004)
Delta IV (K-84 Ekaterinburg) - FAILURE R-29RM Sineva with COMPASS-2 sat (May 24, 2006)
Delta III (K-44 Ryazan) - R-29R (August 1, 2008)
Delta III (K-211 Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski) - R-29R (August 7, 2007)
Delta III (K-433 Sv. Georgi Pobedonosets) - R-29R (September 10, 2006)
Delta III (K-496 Borisoglebsk) - R-29R Volna (October 8, 2005)
Delta III (K-433 Sv. Georgi Pobedonosets) - R-29R (September 30, 2005)
Delta III (K-496 Borisoglebsk) - R-29R (September 8, 2004)
Delta III (K-496 Borisoglebsk) - FAILURE R-29R Volna with Demo sat (October 7, 2005)
Delta III (K-496 Borisoglebsk) - FAILURE R-29R Volna with Demo sat (September 28, 2005)
Delta III (K-496 Borisoglebsk) - FAILURE R-29R Volna with Cosmos-1 sat (June 22, 2005)
- 'Total failures count': 16 Successful - 6 Failures (probability of failures is 27 %)
- 'R-29RM failures count': 10 Successful - 3 Failures (probability of failures is 23 %)
- 'R-29R failures count': 6 Successful - 3 Failures (probability of failures is 33 %) *
* Note that all failures of R-29R took place only with R-29R's 'space launcher' ('Volna') mod.
- Timeline of failures:
2008 - 0 failures
2007 - 0 failures
2006 - 1 failure (SLBM in SL mod)
2005 - 3 failures (SLBMs in Space Launcher mod)
2004 - 2 failures (SLBMs)
- Finally, - at least 6 subs were performers of 16 successful test launches during the last 4 years:
Delta III / K-44 Ryazan
Delta III / K-211 Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski
Delta III / K-433 Sv. Georgi Pobedonosets
Delta III / K-496 Borisoglebsk
Delta IV / K-114 Tula
Delta IV / K-84 Ekaterinburg
Correction to the previous message:
- Finally, - at least 7 subs were performers of 16 successful test launches during the last 5 years:
Delta III / K-44 Ryazan
Delta III / K-211 Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski
Delta III / K-433 Sv. Georgi Pobedonosets
Delta III / K-496 Borisoglebsk
Delta IV / K-114 Tula
Delta IV / K-84 Ekaterinburg
Delta IV / K-407 Novomoskovsk
Note: 'Demo sat' means 'Demonstrator' satellite.
Not a single Typhoon test. Should we consider then unoperational?
Pavel, thanks for the reminder of the 2007 test from the “Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy”.
Russian, excellent review of all Russian SLBM testing. Good information; thanks for the share.
Gentlemen
While I wouldn’t consider the testing of the SS-N-18 to be robust, it certainly seems to me to indicate a weapon system that is both operational and effective. However, there seems to be a consensus within NATO that the days of the Delta III are over and the submarines no longer patrols. Why? What is the cause of this assumption? Are the Delta III submarines materially ready for sea? If the West doesn’t think the Delta IIIs serve a purpose, then they are useless to Russia as a deterrent. Thoughts?
Frank Shuler
USA
Feanor: Typhoons are long gone.
I read on this page that only one submarine of DELTA IV project carry missiles.
"However, it appears that only K-114 Tula has a full complement of operational missiles."
Is it really true, or You mean that only Tula carry brand new sineva missiles, while others carry older missiles left from soviet union.
Also I read on other pages that production of R-29RM was stopped 1996, and resumed 1999.
Also there is report on arms-tass which suggest that russia already produce enough number of new SLBM to rearm all delta IV submarines.
I think that empty Delta IV or Delta III is just propaganda, because why keep empty submarine in service it will be better to build more topols.
There is something wrong with the missile-launch listings here. As far as I know only the overhauled Delta IV carries the Sineva missile, and that Tula is the only one with operational missiles. All other boats carry the older SS-N-23 SKIFF. The newly overhouled Bryansk probably carry a mix of Skiff and Sineva missiles. If you look at last years production of missiles there is only enough missiles for one boat (in late 2007 at least)http://russianforces.org/blog/2008/04/project_667brdm_submarines_and.shtml
"First four serial Sineva missiles were supplied to the fleet in 2006, and 12 more missiles were produced in 2007, which allowed re-arming Tula atomic-powered ship. Of the three other Project 667BDRM submarines that went through overhaul so far, two - K-51 Verkhoturie and K-84 Ekaterinburg - went only through a medium repair that probably did not include deployment of Sineva missiles."
The Ekaterinburg is in the same articel stated as a test-bed for the Sineva missiles, but probalby do not carry operational Sineva missiles today. Most of the failed launch listed are therefore probably the older SS-N-23 SKIFF missile.
About Delta III. As far as i know only Delta III class SSBN's are operating in the Pacific, no delta IV. Until the Delta III get replaced by Borey class submarine (Several sources suggest that at leat the second and third Borey will go to Pacific) i am sure the russian will keep at least some of these boats operative. A launch of SS-N-18 missile by Ryazan comfirms that the missile is still operative, and that they intend to keep missiles and subs in stock at least until beeing replaced.
06.08.08 - Гондурас стал головной болью американцев - Pravda
[To Russian: I would really appreciate it if you could stop posting spam in comments. -PP]
OT to Frank or whoever knows:
Do you know the current plan for the future payload of the MMIII? Is that still the best guess: http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/mirv.htm ?
Just wondering because the USAF is testing today a MMIII loaded with 3 unarmed warheads.
Martin
I also found the Vandenberg test interesting for exactly the same reason. The general thought is that the new RV, the Safety Enhanced Reentry Vehicle (SERV), will only support two nuclear warheads, either the W-78 or the newer W-87s. It has been reported that the base at Malmstrom AFB will support 150 Minuteman III ICBMs; each loaded with two W78 warheads at least until 2018 and will be equipped with SERV. I assume that date has the end-of-service life of the Russian SS-18s in mind. The two other American ICBM bases, Warren and Minot, will support 150 single armed MMIII missiles, armed with the W87 warhead. (Total deployed ICBM warheads – 600 in a fleet of 450 missiles)
Was this a test of a MMIII with the “old” RV? Maybe a MK12-A. And, if so, why? Perhaps Malmstrom isn’t going to convert to SERV. Was this launch a test of a conventional package for MMII; something that was approved for testing by Congress but a project apparently the US Air Force isn’t interested in? (I think the MMIII conventional program interfered in several global strike projects the USAF is very interested in) Or, is the “new” SERV being modified to support three warheads if needed post 2012?
Thoughts?
Frank Shuler
USA
The newest version of the bulletins summary of nuclear forces 2008 state that the aim is to have 500 warheads on 450 missiles in 2012. And SERV is just related to the W-87. Does that mean that the W-78 will stay as they are without safety upgrades?
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/pr53n270241156n6/fulltext.pdf
Why would a MMIII be downloaded to only 2 W-78's? I haven't heard any news to that effect, although I did hear that the new non-toxic, "environmentally friendly" first and second stage replacement propellant has resulted in significantly reduced performance versus the original MMIII propellant specifications (data from recent test firings)... I suppose that could result in a payload reduction to maintain range.
Martin
The original intent was to reduce the Minuteman III fleet to 500 single warhead missiles to comply with START II. What we know, or at least has been reported, is the 150 W-62 equipped MMIIIs at Warren AFB have been downloaded to single warhead weapons and replaced with W-87 nuclear devices. The SERV program was designed to develop a standard RV that would incorporate the safety features of the Peacekeeper Avco Mk-21 RVs with the Minuteman III missile. The SERV could handle a payload of one or two warheads but apparently not three. During Congressional discussions regarding the RRW project (Reliable Replacement Warhead), the US Air Force stated their goal was to integrate the new RRW with its existing Minuteman III fleet today and eventually Minuteman’s successor in the 2028 time period. The RRW would allow the Air Force to reduce the number of operational warheads and spares to their absolute lowest levels and maintain only one type of ICBM warhead in the fleet. My conclusion was the W-78 is intended to remain in inventory and be operatically deployed.
Frank Shuler
USA
Jon Grams
To my knowledge, the Minuteman III W78 system has only two options, the standard Mk-12A with a three warhead package and the revised Single Reentry Vehicle (SRV) which is a modification (of the Mk-12A?) that allows for only one W78 warhead. I also had never heard of an Mk-12A launch with only two warheads and I’m not sure what is technically possible. I was speculating the SERV might also be an option for the W78 MMIIIs but it’s only speculation on my part. The SERV option might allow for two W78s on a MMIII.
If there is consensus here that the US goal is 550 warheads on 450 missiles here is the logical way that plays out:
Warren -
150 single warhead W-87 SERV
Minot –
150 single warhead W-87 SERV
Malmstrom -
50 three warhead W78 Mk-12A
100 single warhead W78 SRV
Total - 550 deployed warheads and 450 Minuteman III missiles
Minot could just as easily convert to the SRV option with the W78s. I think this may depend on how may W78 warheads the USAF deems necessary to retain in the overall nuclear inventory. I don’t see keeping W78s in place of the more modern and capable W87. JMO
Agreed. I don’t think the Propulsion Replacement Program (PRP) or the Guidance Replacement Program (GRP) have made the Minuteman III (2008 version) a better or more capable ICBM than the original Minuteman III LGM-30.
Frank Shuler
USA