The Russians had better beware. . .most of their strategic infrastructure is old. Replacing their older systems will cut out most of their current capability.

Since many years ago it has become apparent that the elimination of old systems exceeds that of the introduction of new ones, how many more years will it take before this trend is reversed? I have been closely following the developments that are taking place in the Russian military industrial complex and with the kind of state support and funding they are receiving these days they should be able to introduce improvements in various industrial facilities dedicated to the manufacturing of different military hardware but the effects of these measures are yet to materialize. Is it because of corruption or does it takes more time before we can see any actual improvements?

"The Russians had better beware"

...beware of what exactly? A nuclear attack by America? Get real.

It will be interesting to know about American figure in January 2009. I think the US eliminated nothing in 2008!

I think Castelo made a good point here. Where all the money are gone? $30 billion+ is not that small amount considering the size of total Russian annual budget! What was the real contribution to the Russian army in 2008? I think only 11 Topol-M was the real contribution in 2008. Can anyone add few more real contributions (both conventional and strategic)? The way Russia is voluntarily ( may be due to end of service life in some cases), I should say hurriedly reducing there delivery systems, America doesn't need any new arms reduction treaty. Number of Russian warheads will automatically be reduced to around 1700 level by around 2016 (due to rapid reduction and slow production of delivery systems).

I don't know what the Russian army is thinking about! Why they cannot produce 30 ICBM a year to maintain at least a minimum deterrent capability? By 2016 Russia could have only (maximum) 150 Topol-M of various variants at current rate, nothing else. Some of the older Topol-M might be at the end of their service life by that time. On the other hand the US would retain all of its Minuteman-III (as per current plan), at best they could be reduced to single warhead! What a bleak future scenario of Russian forces. No need to mention about the pathetic condition of nuclear subs.

If Russian forces are seriously thinking about a 10 years window from now on and producing 30 Topol-M a year, number of ICBM could be the same of that of the US.

I really support President Obama's initiative for a Nuclear free world. I think Russia is voluntarily heading towards that goal of Obama, smile!

The past few years have been spent retooling and refurbishing factories, which is why despite the increase in funding on the face of it the procurement numbers arent stellar. For example, The Su-34 factory at NAPO has just finished a major retooling in order to start serial production of the Su-34. I believe this has been a trend at many factories, so hopefully soon the refurbishment phase will finish and the procurement can finally begin in numbers.

The Russians can't afford to maintain a large nuclear arsenal any more. Honestly what would be the point? Nuclear arsenals have almost no relevance in the modern world and the more the Russians scrap the more money they free up to spend on more useful things.

A question for Pavel:
Do you know what happens to the warheads removed from the scrapped missiles?

Russian should continue to maintain SS-18 & SS-19 as deterrants in addition to SS-27 by extending their life. Statements such as 'nuclear arms have lost relevance in today's world' and 'Defense funds must be directed towards welfare of suffering people' etc. are equally applicable to all countries but are used by some countries just to lull Russia into believing in their rhetoric. The U.S. has far more nuclear warheads in readiness than Russia.

Wild speculation for the 2020 timeframe - assuming a kinda nice world:

50x SS-18, 150x SS-27, 100x RS-24, 64x Sineva (4 boats), 128x Bulava (8 boats). That would require a minimum production of roughly one missile per month each for SS-27, RS-24, and Bulava. And would optimistically result in a 500 missile force with about 1800 warheads (assuming SS-18 will have 10, others no more than 4 MIRVs) and a total yield of 600 MT. Looking at time and money Russia will have to fight hard not to fall below the lower SORT limit, but will be able to compensate via road mobility and higher yields.

The U.S. at the same time could have about 740 missiles with 1600 warheads and less than 400 MT yield.

Parimal,

The R-36MUTTH/SS-18 deployment ended in 1986, UR-100NUTTH/SS-19 in 1984, Topol/SS-25 in 1996. These missiles are being withdrawn as they come to the end of their service lives, not as a consequence of some conspiracy. As a general point, parity between Russia and the USA is impossible because American GDP is more than 6 times larger even in PPP terms.

In my opinion Parity is still attainable if Russia continue to maintain a sizeable nuclear strike force. And with the current situation today (with Russia having lost some strategic foothold in eastern Europe and an aggressively expanding NATO) the need for a powerful counter-force is highly necessary. Russia must find a way to restore their soviet era production levels if they are serious in securing their national security. If Oleg's view about the present modernization of Russia's military industrial facilities is true then we could expect a gradual improvement in their production capacity in the next following years.

Anonymous,

I think some of the SS-18 were deployed just before the demise of the USSR. Yes, most of the Soviet made ICBM are at the end of their service lives but if Russia sincerely tried their service lives could be extended to several more years. I think some of the ICBM’s service lives have been extended but not the way America did. I think Minuteman is the oldest ICBM in the world at this moment. And America will be retaining all 450 Minuteman –III until a new ICBM is produced. That’s amazing. If you look at the trend of Russian elimination of nuclear delivery systems after the disintegration of Soviet Union, you can easily identify that there is definitely something wrong.

I am not drawing any parity with the American. But $40 billion a year is lot of money for Russian Army considering the total budget of Russia and its economic standard. If they spend a minor portion of that money to produce some more ICBM they could be able to procure at least 500 ICBM by 2020. 500 ICBM even with single warhead would give Russia competitive deterrent to deal with America or any other military power.

Oleg, I am sorry to say that the past Russian Govt. let the well-established military, space and aeronautics industry to be destroyed. I think Russia is the only country in the world which allowed its high-tech industry to get collapsed. Now the present govt. has to spend lots of money to revive the industry. I don’t know how they find out the replacements of the technicians who left the industry.

Mongo, I think Russia can easily, without putting any pressure on the economy, maintain minimum deterrent capability say 1700 warheads and at least 600 delivery systems with the current budget they have. I think nuclear arsenals are still relevant for the world order at present day scenario.

Currently technicians aren't the problem. The problem is/was run down factories unable to produce enough missiles per year. After 10 years of 0 funding/orders, you cannot expect a factory to be able to produce 50 ICBMs per year at the drop of a hat. The same applies to tanks, aircraft, etc. At least with tanks and aircraft there were export orders to maintain a certain level of production during the 90s, not so obviously for ICBM factories. I would expect and hope to see a gradual ramp up in the coming years in the number of ICBMs being acquired per year, as the money spent retooling the factories in the last half decade bears fruit.

I am sorry, the last post heading Anonymous was actually posted by me. Due to internet connection problem I mistakenly couldn't re log-in in time. I am sorry for the mistake.

There is no need to reach parity with USA on strategic arsenals. A force able to ride a first counterforce strike and still inflict massive damage is enough. This can be done with a force smaller than the American by focusing in (1) survavility, i.e. mobile launchers, constant SSBN patrols and so on… (2) a robust early warning and surveillance system (3) ability to defeat ABM defences.
By looking in the deployment trends, it seems that Russia will have a robust Strategic force with single warhead and multiple warhead mobile vectors (with advanced penaids), a slightly better shape SSBN force and a re-birthing early warning net.

A final topic. I finally agree that Russia needs a very strong arsenal of tactical and operational nuclear warheads in order to face sub-strategic scenarios focused in the West (name it NATO) and south-east (name it China).

Anonymous,

A small number of R-36M2 missiles were deployed shortly before the collapse of the USSR, but that does not alter the picture. Your search for a conspiracy is futile, since none of these missiles were intended to remain in service for more than two decades. If extensive measures had not been taken to extend their lives, most of them would have been retired by now.

The comparison with the Minuteman III is a false one. The United States has chosen to produce new missiles by gradually replacing obsolete components, instead of entire ICBMs. The American missiles on alert at present are newer than most Russian ones.

Even if Russia's defence budget is 100 billion dollars, it is not sufficient to maintain the world's third-largest conventional military as well as nuclear parity with the USA. America will spend 534 billion dollars in 2009, while China's spending in 2008 was between 105 and 150 billion, according to American estimates. Taking into account that production costs in China are lower than in Russia, it becomes clear that Russia's armed forces are chronically underfunded for the missions they are meant to fulfil.

The cost of manufacturing, testing and placing on alert 500 missiles is likely to exceed 50 billion dollars. Russia's other large defence projects, especially the PAK-FA, Su-35, Dologoruky, Severodvinsk and military satellites, are too expensive to permit the expenditure of so vast a sum on ballistic missiles.

[There is no need to reach parity with USA on strategic arsenals. A force able to ride a first counterforce strike and still inflict massive damage is enough.]

There is real wisdom in Kolokol’s words. Such a robust, redundant military force by the Kremlin insures no nation will ever launch a nuclear first-strike on Russia Isn’t that the real purpose of strategic nuclear weapons in today’s world?

Once that state is reached, adding numbers is meaningless.

Frank Shuler
USA

Russia must either succeed in inducting 'Bulava' in 2009 or deploy 'Sineva's in the Borey class subs to avoid further wasteful expenditure. I understand it is possible to accommodate 'Sineva's in the new subs. Russia should also adopt the concept of testing and replacement of any defective components (due to aging) in the existing SS-18, SS-19 and SS-25 to extend their life periods at a fraction of the cost of replacing the missiles. These are very useful and effective deterrants against any aggression. At the same time Russia can continue with Topol-M and RS-24 production and deployments. I believe RS-24 is a missile with multiple MARV warheads and not ballistic warheads.

Mr. Shuler,

The existence of problems specific to Russia, such as the difficulty of maintaing an effective maritime deterrent, precludes the implementation of your suggestion. As a consequence of various endemic inefficiencies, such as the one noted above, Russia's nuclear forces must be at least as large as those of the USA in order to be effective.

Another Anonymous,

I am talking about a timeframe up to 2020. I am talking about 1700 warheads that President Obama is talking about. The combination of delivery systems for 1700 warheads is my point. What I mean Russia should have 500 land based ICBM (even with single warhead) in that combination. Yes I am well aware of American defense budget. In fact American defense budget is much bigger than the total budget of Russia. The US defense ministry is planning to spend one trillion dollars to manufacture and maintain more than 2000 F-35 fighters alone! There is no question of drawing any parity with the USA indeed.

I agree with Kolokol and Frank. Russia needs a robust strategic force.

Parimal,

I understand your position. However, you have not addressed my central contention, that Russia cannot produce 500 ballistic missiles unless her military budget is completetly redrafted. The Russian fiscal position is such that it can support either a large nuclear force or a large conventional force, but not both. To put it more directly, you are effectively suggesting that Russia reduce her conventional forces to minimum strength.

Another Anonymous

I disagree. With the before mentioned “endemic inefficiencies”, increasing the bulk size of the Russian nuclear inventory only magnifies the ‘inefficiency’. More is not better. Let me provide a practical example. With an inventory of twelve operational submarines (fourteen in total), the US Navy maintains at least six Trident ballistic missile submarines on deterrent station at all time with at least two boats in transit to add to the numbers in the event of a national emergency. The French also have a SSBN boat on constant patrol with only five Le Triomphant-class submarines in their inventory. How is this possible? Both the US and the French have two crews assigned per submarine. A superb dockyard infrastructure and the dual-crew system allows the US Navy to maintain a 66% deployment rate for the Trident boats. I can’t see a reason if such resources were provided to the Russian Navy that a constant deterrent patrol could not be maintained by the five Delta IVs (Project 667BDRM) alone. That single submarine and the silo and mobile SS-27s alone prevent the first-strike scenario we have been discussing.

Frank Shuler
USA

K.A.Sharma

[Russia must either succeed in inducting 'Bulava' in 2009 or deploy 'Sineva's in the Borey class subs to avoid further wasteful expenditure. I understand it is possible to accommodate 'Sineva's in the new subs.]

I must admit I was intrigued by your comments. I would have thought reengineering the Project 955 boats to operate the Sineva missile would have been impossible. Or, at least, not cost effective. The different launch weight... solid fuel vs liquid... different flight patterns... so many differences. Do you have any details on how this might be done? What would be involved?

Frank Shuler
USA

Being out 66% doesn't mean being on deterrent ops 66% - that percentage is more like one-third, or four boats in case of the USN.

For Russia having only a single boat, or be it two, on deterrent alarm is risky next to useless, as it can easily be followed by SSNs, esp when the other side has 50 of them. Survivability of the system also requires mass.

Bulava will work at some point, and if production works out one boat can be outfitted per year.

And Russia will try to reach - at least - parity with the U.S. That's as much about national pride as it is about paranoia. At least because Russia is aware of its conventional weakness vs the U.S. and it is official line to offset that with just a little more nuclear. And then there is the British and French nuclear capability. And also don't forget about conspiracy scenarios, along the line of China together with the West against Russia and such.

Re that other comment about Russia's choice being either nuclear, or conventional, but not both: That's exactly what is happening now as far it concerns the West (and China). Looking at potential conflicts of the regional variety the Russian conventional capabilities are still way enough to crush anyone around - so nobody tries anyway. But military threats are not what really worries thinking Russians ...

Frank,

The possibility of replacing 'Bulava' with 'Sineva' missiles in Borey class subs was discussed in detail in http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090227/120337900.html. This was in the article 'Will Russia get Bulava' in 'opinion & analysis' of RIA NOVOSTI' date: 27/02/2009. Such option as well as requisite modifications to use either of the missiles if required has been discussed. I can only guess that this possibility includes considerations of cost effectiveness although I must confess I don't have any figures.

Mr. Shuler,

You have failed to understand my argument. An increase in the size of Russia's nuclear forces would make them more effective, not more efficient.

It would not be economically feasible to reconstruct Russian naval bases to the standard of American ones. Murmansk and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy are so remote that the construction and upkeep of the new infrastructure would consume most of the naval budget. Even the USSR, with its superior resources, rejected a proposed base upgrade project.

Russia doesnt need a nuclear force that is comparable to the U.S. in size, A force thats capable of offsetting a first strike is enough.

Another Anonymous,

How do costs of maintaining "extra sized" Russian nuclear arcenal compare with the costs needed to upgrade naval basing facilities?

Also, with so much investment slated for Murmansk region in the next few years, will the costs of upgrading North Fleet basing go down?

And one more question. Why invest so much of the naval budget into Borey project if the subs cannot be kept at sea? I imagine that properly trained crew (crews?) and naval base are just as important to the effective (SSBN) deterrent as the actual submarine itself.

Admittedly, I am an amatueur in all matters naval so please take my questions as a request for clarification, nothing else.