The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START data, which reflect the status of strategic forces on February 5, 2011. According to the release, Russia has 521 operationally deployed strategic launcher and 1537 operationally deployed warheads. The total number of launchers, deployed and non-deployed, is 865. The U.S. numbers are 882, 1800, and 1124 respectively.
As we can see, Russia is already below the limit as far as operationally deployed systems are concerned. It would have to eliminate some of its non-deployed launchers, however, to get under the treaty limit of 800. The United States has a bit more work to do.
It is very disappointing that we don't see more detailed numbers, but that's what's in the treaty. U.S. officials assured us that they are working on releasing the detailed U.S. data exchange document. That would be very good, although we can predict that Russia will not follow suit. So, we'll have to do with what we have. I'll try to see what kind of useful information can be extracted from these three numbers that we know now.
The book
Comments
It is disappointing, true. But, from the optimist's point of view it is also substantially important. Until now we were only guessing: is Russia below the limits already, or is not...
Just to recap the eventual American New START nuclear arsenal:
1). The baseline plan will retain up to 420 deployed ICBMs, all with a single warhead.
2). The US will have 60 "treaty" nuclear-capable bombers.
3). While retaining all 14 Trident strategic nuclear submarines (SSBNs), the number of launch tubes per submarine will be reduced from 24 to 20 and no more than 240 SLBM will be deployable at any time.
source: President Obama’s 1251 report to Congress
Frank Shuler
USA
At first glance, the number of deployed warheads for Russia is shockingly low, almost 1000(!) less than the most common estimate (Bulletin Nuclear Notebook, FAS, etc) of 2430.
Note however that the number of deployed launchers *isn't* meaningfully lower, 521 instead of 530-ish.
Anyone have any idea how this could be possible?
Is the fact that strategic bombers are counted as 1 warhead regardless of payload enough to account for this discrepancy?
uvb76: I think you are correct. Russian strategic bombers can carry 1188 cruise missiles (63 *16 + 15 *12 = 1188), but only 78 are counted as deployed or non-deployed.
I don't know the breakdown between deployed and non-deployed though. Obviously, not every Tu-95MS or Tu-160 is operation, since a bunch of them are undergoing modernization (2 Tu-160s at a time, I believe), so there may also be a discrepancy there as well.
I was surprised by the number of Russian non-deployed SDVs. What are they? OK, a couple of Delta IV submarines undergoing overhaul, perhaps (so, there's 32-48 launchers), maybe several bombers also. Maybe they also count the two new Borei class submarines among the non-deployed (another 32 launchers). Maybe they even don't count any of the 78 bombers as deployed (since bombers are not assigned nuclear warheads on a daily basis).
But where is the rest of those 344 non-deployed launchers coming from? Seems like a fairly large number to just have lying around doing nothing.
New START bomber numbers and counting rules certainly mislead the numbers. For example, the US will have a total inventory of 85 B-52H bombers and 20 B-2A Spirit; the so called Stealth bombers. However, only 76 of the 85 B-52H bombers are considered “operational” and only 44 are considered “operational nuclear bombers” by the Treaty. Similarly, the number of nuclear B-2 bombers is limited to 16. Those 44 B-52 bombers technically could carry 4 nuclear gravity bombs each or 20 Air Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCM). The B-2 carry a collective payload of 256 nuclear gravity bombs. In other words, the US nuclear bomber fleet that is counted as 60 launchers with 60 warheads actually could carry 1136 nuclear weapons in a conflict.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank, would you kindly comment on the current M-III situation? I keep reading statistics like the current arsenal of 450 missiles with 500 warheads. I thought all M-III were de-MIRVed years ago. Where are the extra 50 warheads located?
Also, do you know the latest status of Raytheon/ATK SLIBRM next gen missile to replace Trident? Are trials likely to happen soon, or are they taking it slow since D5 isn't going away soon?
artjomh
Today, there are 450 Minuteman III ICBMs located at three USAF bases. (Warren, Minot and Malmstrom AFB) The Minuteman III missile first entered service in 1970 and is expected to soldier on until 2030 when it is due for replacement. The W87 warhead from the Peacekeeper ICBM, long since retired, has replaced the old W62 warhead in the Minuteman III fleet and, also, the W78 is being retained in the operational inventory. As part of the modernization program for MMIII a new Safety Enhanced Reentry Vehicle (SERV) has been introduced to the fleet. This new RV can handle both the newer W87 and the older W78 warhead; it is thought the new RV retains the ability for MIRV but, perhaps, only two warheads can be up-loaded. Today, the “extra” 50 MMIIIs with two warheads, W78s, are at Malmstrom.
Indeed, the Lockheed Trident SLBM is scheduled to be installed in a new class of strategic nuclear submarines; to be built in the 2020s. The current Trident missile is due for a D5 Life Extension Program (D5LEP) currently under development that will incorporate new technologies and sub-systems. As the new class of American strategic nuclear submarines enter service with Trident D5LEP, a new SLBM will be procured to equipped the American “boomers” and Trident will be replaced also in the 2030 timeframe.
There are no current plans to develop or build new nuclear warheads for either the Minuteman III or Trident replacements.
Frank Shuler
USA
In the last years under the START I Treaty the U.S. Department of State published twice a year the aggregate numbers of strategic offensive arms with the numbers of deployed launchers of ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers additionally with the numbers of warheads attributed to the deployed launchers for each type of delivery vehicles. It is very likely that the State Department will release the complete detailed data of its own semiannual data exchange. According to Paragraph 5 of Article VII of the New START Treaty the State Department cannot release any further data and information of the Russian data exchange without permission of the Russian party of the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC). So it is absolutely clear that during the duration of the validity of the New START Treaty the public will not receive any further data and information about the Russian strategic offensive arms.
In this situation the community of interested people must work together with all its knowledge and experiences for a better understanding of the composition and structure of the Russian strategic nuclear forces. And maybe some official institutions and authorities will help in this process.
The interpretation of the released New START Treaty aggregate numbers of Russian strategic offensive arms is very difficult. I hope that other readers have other information for a detailed overview.
Estimation of deployed and non-deployed launchers:
SS-18......../RS-20....................104
SS-19......../RS-18....................118
SS-25......../RS-12M..................209
SS-27M1..../RS-12M2..................52
SS-27M1..../RS-12M2..................18
SS-27M2..../RS-24........................6
Total.........................................509
SS-N-18...../RSM-50....................96
SS-N-20...../RSM-52....................40
SS-N-23...../RSM-54....................96
SS-NX-32.../RSM-56....................36
Total.........................................268
Bear........../Tu-95MS...................68
Blackjack..../Tu-160.....................20
Total...........................................88
Total.........................................865
[Edited to change the number of SS-19 from 120 to 118, SS-27 from 50 to 52, and SS-25 from 211 to 209.]
artjomh -
>>> But where is the rest of those 344 non-deployed launchers coming from? Seems like a fairly large number to just have lying around doing nothing.
One needs to remember that non-deployed launchers include systems that have been "retired", but not yet converted or destroyed. So, the two idle Typhoons, for example, count for 40 "non-deployed" launchers. Any Delta-IIIs hanging around waiting to be dismantled would likewise be included in the count. Old Tu-95MS that are not considered "deployed" would fall in the "non-deployed" category as well, even if they're parked in a bone yard.
Likewise, Russia may have a number of SS-18 and SS-19 silos that are empty, but not destroyed. Under the New START treaty, they too count as "non-deployed" launchers.
SS-25......../RS-12M..................211 ??
It should be 176
Dear Vlad,
according to the last START I Treaty Memorandum of Understanding of 1 July 2009 Russia had 259 deployed and non-deployed SS-25 launchers, 176 deployed launchers (with 174 deployed ICBMs) and 83 non-deployed launchers (65 non-deployed and 18 test launchers). After nearly two years, the numbers obviously are lower. Currently, I estimate the number of deployed and non-deployed SS-25 launchers with more than 200, and the number of deployed launchers with more than 120. It is important to distinguish between "deployed" and "non-deployed" launchers and delivery vehicles. But we have no other information or correct numbers for a better overview . You can see the 2009 Russian Federation MOU data under: http://fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/armscontrol/MOU-Jul2009ex.pdf
Martin:
Did you catch Hans Kristensen's new post on the B-61-12 system? Seems to reinforce my last conversation with you on the differences between US "tactical" and "strategic" nuclear warheads falling away. This will be interesting to follow.
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2011/06/b61-12.php
Frank Shuler
USA
Hi Frank,
interesting read. Even if the B61-12 gets deployed without the new tail section in Europe, how could anyone tell as there are no inspections. Will surely be new amunition for people lobbying for new SRBMs or IRBMs in Russia.
Martin
Martin:
Ultimately, the real significance is the US will no longer have “tactical” or “strategic” warheads but just nuclear weapons. New START only counts “delivery systems” and not actual weapons; will that change in the future? Will the next Nuclear Arms Agreement between Moscow and Washington attempt to include limits on all nuclear weapons? Would Russia have anything to gain from such an agreement?
One question I had before seems to be somewhat answered. Hans Kristensen's suggests only 400 or so B-61s are to be rebuilt as B-61-12s. The American arsenal isn’t growing and really shouldn’t present any additional security threat to Russia. From the United States' perspective the Pentagon gets a bomb weapon that can be used interchangeably by every US nuclear delivery system, has a low battlefield yield and improved accuracy. (perhaps astounding accuracy)
Frank Shuler
USA
>>Even if the B61-12 gets deployed without the new tail section in Europe, how could anyone tell as there are no inspections.
It is irrelevant, as long as no B-2 is deployed in Europe. Only the delivery vehicle matters.
>>Will surely be new amunition for people lobbying for new SRBMs or IRBMs in Russia.
I cannot believe such idiots still exist, when it is obvious that IRBM vs IRBM matchup in Europe heavily favours the United States. Such a matchup would threaten almost the entirety of Russian homeland, while posing no threat to US forces.
>> New START only counts “delivery systems” and not actual weapons; will that change in the future?
New START counts warheads, but their number is fairly academic. This isn't the 70's anymore, when there was a real threat of USSR MIRVing the shit out of their arsenal.
The threat of MIRVing is smaller today (new liquid ICBM notwithstanding), so US can relax in expectation that warhead numbers are not going to jump upwards unpredictably.
artjomh
It seems today, little Russia does militarily influences American security policy. Russia can build as many new “heavy MIRV” ICBMs as she wants and as long as the New START totals are kept, Washington doesn’t care. In fact, the New START agreement seems more of a “framework” agreement than anything else. One thing we all can agree on, New START hasn’t limited nuclear weapons in the least. All the US wants is deterrence with Russia; something we have today and will have in the future. With deterrence in place, arguments over weapon systems that never will be used becomes academic.
Frank Shuler
USA
Not to worry, Frank, US still has plenty of opportunity to overreact vis-a-vis the Iranian actions.
Nobody is taking the "we must not allow a mine shaft gap" away from the American defense policy toolbox. 8)
artjomh
Well, at least the Iranians pose a “threat” to the US and American interest.
You Russians are so stuck in the 1960’s. We have moved on. Our interest now is in the potential “mine shaft gap” on Mars. We must get there first! (dr strangelove grin)
Frank Shuler
USA