On July 27th, 2011 the Ekaterinburg submarine of the Project 667BDRM class performed a successful launch of a R-29RM Sineva missile. The missile was launched from a submerged submarine deployed in Barents Sea toward the Kura test site in Kamchatka. According to the defense ministry representative, all warheads reached their designated targets.
Previous launch of a Sineva missile took place on May 20, 2011, also from the Ekaterinburg submarine.
The book
Comments
Another one! Are these all different models/designs as far as we know?
Frank:
OT, but do you know what went wrong during the last MMIII test from Vandenberg?
Martin
Martin
The routine test from Vandenberg was terminated by the USAF after a “flight anomaly” was detected. It is usual practice to bring down such a launch early to keep the debris on the Roi-Namur range site. Public safety is always sighted but, of course, security is the real reason. It does appear this missile was an operational Minuteman III system and not some other type of launch; a conventional payload or new RV test, for example. The US Air Force has opened an investigation and we’ll have to wait to see if there is any farther information publicly shared.
This comes at an interesting time in the Pentagon. The “think tank” boys are beginning to question the need for a future redundant US nuclear missile inventory. One school thinks the nuclear response could be entirely moved to Trident (and its successor). Yet, another thinks a land based ICBM effort, with both silo and mobile missiles, is the best long term solution. It will be interesting to see if the reliability of Minuteman III is questioned, how this debate will be focused.
Frank Shuler
USA
Hi Frank,
will be interesting to to see what decision will be made for the future US deterrent. In my opinion, the US should shift to land based systems entirely, I don't see a reason to keep the sea based lag. "High surviveability" is just such an empty phrase in my view, missing the point that there is no other country in the moment and in the years to come having the capability to take out 450 MMIII silos, the problem to overcome the early warning system aside. To do that, you would need about 1.500 high yield or low CEP warheads, not even Russia has that capability anymore.
Martin
Martin
It will be an interesting discussion to follow. I must admit, my opinion has somewhat evolved over the years. Even in the recent past, I could not have imagined the American nuclear arsenal not including a sea-based system (read: Trident and its successor) However; times have changed. Today, I could easily see the future American nuclear deterrent being only land based.
Current thought by the Pentagon “think tank” boys is any present or “future” attack on the Minuteman III fleet would leave 80% of those ICBMs operational and available for a counterstrike. This is a radical opinion given the prevailing feeling post-START I was that the Soviet SS-18 missile alone could have destroyed 90% of American’s ICBMs in their silos. (the Kremlin had 154 post-START I SS-18 missiles with 1540 high yield warheads) However, somewhere along the way, the United States “lost” its fear of the SS-18. I have my speculation as to why but it’s only my opinion.
Take the current 450 Minuteman III silos in the 2020-2030 timeframe and put 450 new ICBMs with a pair of warheads each and you would have a powerful nuclear deterrent. Given the assumptions that you could have a 95% operational up time and lose only 20% to any and all nuclear strikes, why would any adversary ever start such a war? That’s the theory, of course.
Who knows, perhaps the GBI ballistic missile defense system based currently in Alaska and California could play a future role “guarding” the American ICBM fleet. Maybe the ABM system in the next twenty years or so will have moved from a research and development (R&D) project to an actual weapon system. Maybe.
Frank Shuler
USA
Hi Frank,
totally agree with you. Espacially when the R-36M2's will be gone by the mid-20's, there will be nothing left that could threaten a MMIII silo.
Are there any numbers around what the costs of the sea-leg are compared to the land-leg?
Martin
Martin
The ICBM “think tank” boys always tout the cost savings of using the existing MMIII silos as opposed to building a class of new nuclear ballistic missile submarines, but, such arguments are always short of actual financial numbers. However, there can be no doubt that reconstituting the land based ICBM force with a new missile would be far less expensive than building a new fleet of submarines and developing a new SLBM to arm them. It’s just common sense. There is the operational cost to support as well. Published reports suggest the US Navy has over 50,000 sailors supporting the Trident program; either directly in fleet or general submarine support. The US Air Force has 15,000 airmen that directly support the Minuteman III fleet. Also an issue is “readiness”. Today, the Trident fleet has 14 boats with 12 operational at any give time. It is generally thought at least 6 Trident submarines are on “alert patrol” at any given time. Those post- New START submarines carry 120 UGM-133 Trident II (Trident D5) and, let’s say, 480 warheads. In my New-ICBM scenario, just 240 ICBMs (out of an inventory of 450) with dual warheads cover the same targets. That is the biggest argument of the ICBM “think tank” boys.
The real issue is can such a silo based deterrent keep America safe? Can such a weapon system as the NEW-ICBM provide real deterrence; the ability stop any general nuclear war from starting by its very presence? Would such a nuclear system be able to sustain any attack and have the ability to respond in such a way to make any nuclear strike on the United States futile to begin with? All good questions.
Frank Shuler
USA