The story of Russia's developing an intermediate-range missile in violation of the INF treaty has been pretty fishy from the start, quotes from anonymous U.S. intelligence officials notwithstanding. The whole thing seems to be based on the fact that missile that was tested on 6 June 2013 was launched from Kapustin Yar to Sary-Shagan. The distance between the two is a bit over 2000 km - not an intercontinental range. However, this does not mean that the missile is not an ICBM - nothing prohibits Russia from testing an ICBM at shorter ranges. A representative of the General Staff, Colonel-General Vladimir Zarudnitsky clearly stated that the missile that was tested on June 6th, Rubezh, is an intercontinental-range missile. What's more important, he also said that is was the fourth test of the missile. Two of these tests - in September 2011 and in May 2012 were conducted from Plesetsk to Kura (although the first test was a failure). Hans Kristensen has an excellent post that examines official statements and has a good map of the relevant sites.
There was a bit of confusion about the name of the missile - it is sometimes called Avangard or Yars-M. Indeed, it is not quite clear if Rubezh has anything to do with either of them. What is clear from Zarudnitsky's statement, though, is that the missile that was tested in October 2012 and in June 2013 from Kapustin Yar to Sary-Shagan is the same one that flew from Plesetsk to Kura (5800 km), so it is an ICBM.
Tests of ICBMs from Kapustin Yar to Sary-Shagan are fairly routine affair. Even without the two Rubezh tests in 2012 and 2013, there were quite a few Topol tests - in June 2012, September 2011, and December 2010 to name the most recent ones.
The book
Comments
Once again Hans Kristensen has written a concise and logical explanation to this non-issue. The facts are simple; the RS-24 Yars-M (Rubezh) is an ICBM and thus covered by the New START agreement and is not in any way a violation of the INF treaty. I think the frustration of House Armed Services Committee chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon is also simple. He has requested a finding from the Obama Administration on this test since June 6th and has received no news from the Pentagon or State. Rep. McKeon is more angry with President Obama for the disrespect than Russia for the test. The “leak” to the Washington Times is only a prod to the Administration to provide policy facts.
Just local politics.
Frank Shuler
USA
As I said, we don't know if Rubezh, Yars-M, and Avangard have anything to do with each other. It appears that Rubezh has an ICBM range (defined in New START as more than 5500 km), so it will have to be declared as ICBM under New START (and as I understand, it has been shown to the U.S.), but we don't know much about that missile.
We once thought that Sineva was a totally new Russian SLBM but learned it was really more of a R-29RM with all-Russian made components. Improvements? Yes, but basically just a new “Russian” SS-N-23. Liner was supposed to be a new missile but we learned that it was the same Sineva missile with a new warhead package. Perhaps, Avangard/Rubezh are just simply warhead improvement projects, just like Liner, for the RS-24 Yars system?
Frank Shuler
USA
Recently published pictures of what is alleged to be the TEL of Avangard/Rubezh can be seen here:
http://dimmi-tomsk.livejournal.com/171948.html
Should this information prove to be correct, than the Avangard/Rubezh missile is significantly shorter and lighter than Topol/Yars.
Does it mean it is an IRBM? Not realy.
IMHO Avangard/Rubezh is the "land based Bulava" ICBM, whose development was rumored at the start of the Bulava project.
Um, MAZ made a lot of 12x12 rigs. MAZ-7919, MAZ-7916, MAZ-7905 are some examples. Not all of them were even used for military purposes.
Lets not make mountains out of molehills just because someone wants to "land a scoop".
Kuryer ICBM was developed for an 8x8 MAZ-7909 and 10x8 MAZ-7929. Does that mean Kuryer wasn't an ICBM? The axle arrangement means NOTHING.