The first New START data exchange scheduled for March 22, 2011 should finally answer the question of how many warheads are deployed on the RS-24 version of the Topol-M missile. Some press reports mentioned four, but Russian press is notoriously unreliable. Commander of the Rocket Forces also said at some point that RS-24 will carry four warheads. But Russian generals are not much more reliable than the Russian press.
My analysis suggested that the number is three, but it is an estimate based on circumstantial evidence. Now we have Vladimir Popovkin also saying that "Topol-M [i.e. RS-24] can carry a maximum of three warheads" (via Russian Military Reform - a very interesting blog maintained by Dmitry Gorenburg). But then again, Russian generals are not particularly reliable. I guess we'll have to wait for the New START data.
The book
Comments
I think Pavel's original analysis was spot on, all the more recent statements by Gen Popovkin et al. do seem to suggest 3, and as far as I've seen there does seem to be - if anything - more often a tendency to initially overstate the number of MIRVs carried by any armament rather than understate it. (recall the early press releases mentioning the tiny Bulava as capable of delivering 10 (!) warheads).
Interesting to see how much attention Popovkin gives to the huge, planned SS-18 replacement - suprising for a weapon whose design and development has practically only just started.
Of course, notice also how once again the point is made, with no shortage of smugness, that "the Americans feared it so much that they called it Satan". Militarily, as some here have wisely pointed out, such a beast may be overkill, or even a little destabilising, but it does allow for some serious political posturing, apparently even when it's still years away from being built. :)
Its technically not impossible to place 10 wahrheads on a relatively small missile as Bulava or Topol M. The solid fueled two stage Poseidon C3 carried 10-14 W-68/Mk.3 MIRV (40-50kT, weighing ~170kg) at a launch weight of roughly 30t, although the range was limited with 4,800km. So I have no doubts that Bulava could carry 10 small warheads, wouldn't make much sense though.
Martin
Hello!
RIAN is today reporting (http://www.en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110317/163056088.html) that the head of the MITT stated that Russia will be developing a new ballistic missile by 2013 which will "significantly boost the fire control and communications components" as well as "feature high survivability and enhanced striking capability".
I had thought that the single warhead Topol-M and RS-24 were the future of Russia's land-based deterrent. Does the call for a new missile come as the result of a perceived weakness? Under the terms of New START, would this new missile likely require that Russia deploy fewer RS-24s and/or Topol-Ms?
The report on Russia's modernization program released at the end of February stated that a new heavy missile program would be undertaken. Would this be part of the same story? The same report from February stated that the call for proposals was for a liquid-fueled missile. Does MITT have experience with missiles of this type? If I am not mistaken, the Topol family and Bulava have solid-state fuels. Are there benefits to using liquid vs solid state fuels? I was under the impression that liquid fuels had shorter life-spans and higher maintenance costs.
I am curious what your opinion is on these stories.
Thank you.
Chris: The 2013 missile is likely to be just a moderate upgrade of the Topol-M/RS-24. As for the new liquid-fuel missile, I wrote about it earlier. Of course, this project will go to NPOmash, not MITT.
Solomonov says:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/7183
– А что можно сказать об идее возвращения в состав РВСН железнодорожных комплексов (БРРК)? Очень много в свое время было сказано о высокой живучести таких систем.
– На самом деле живучесть подвижного грунтового и железнодорожного комплексов практически одинакова. Совсем недавно мы как раз выиграли конкурс по этой тематике, но я был сторонником принятия решения о неразвертывании полномасштабных работ по БРРК. Во-первых, здесь речь идет не столько о ракетах, сколько о типе базирования, что связано с необходимыми затратами для воссоздания военной инфраструктуры, которая на сегодняшний день полностью разрушена. Это огромные деньги, и они потенциально ничего не добавят к боевой эффективности наших СЯС.
Более того, БРРК обладает принципиальным недостатком в современных условиях: низкая антитеррористическая устойчивость. Это уязвимое место железнодорожного комплекса и оно существенно снижает его боевые возможности.
What are these moderate upgrades of the Topol-M/RS-24?
Whatever this missile might be, I am reasonably certain that it is not the rail-mobile missile that Solomonov mentioned in passim (in the quote given by Gradient). My understanding is that the idea of rail-road missiles was seriously considered by the military and the industry and the decision was made not to go ahead with it. As for the "moderate upgrade," it could be improved command and control interface or something like that.