Current Russian ICBMs

The SS-24 was suppose to replace SS-19s in silos I think, but I’m not sure if there are any left in the silos..

Silo based system are quite survivable provided you have an adqequate early warning , And I doubt except for a Direct Hit ( or a large MT blast near by ) on those silos could disable those system on either sides.

Those silos were developed knowing full well that they could be the first target from an attack so adequate Structural & EMP protection would have been taken care of .

OTOH most of the Mobile system are more or less soft skin targets , the only factor that makes them survivable is their mobility and difficulty to track them in real time.

Either ways for both these system only an adequate early warning can save the day.

That kinda sucks,seemed like a pretty survivable system,right next to the mobile SS-25.Wasn’t there some silo based SS-24s too or was that just a plan to base some in silos and it got cut before it happened?

No 🙁

The train carried ones all went goodbye just 7 months ago if not a bit more I think..

No more SS-24s I take it?

Ofcourse it goes without saying that CEP of Zero is desirable no matter what kind of warhead you are carrying conventional or otherwise

A CEP of under 500 Meteres is stilll very effective for a 500kt warhead if Industrial, General Military and Population centers are the target , One just needs to look at the destructive power of 12kt Hiroshima Nuke.

CEP of a Russian ICBM is best left uncommented , Or better accept the Janes figure of ~500 m 🙂

If you are arming a Missile with N-warhead a CEP of few Km hardly matters.

Not exactly. If you’re using warheads in the kiloton range, accuracy is still in your best interest. Total destruction of reinforced facilities isn’t going to take place outside of a mile and a half of ground zero with a 500 kT warhead, so you want to make sure you’re as accurate as possible. Remember, CEP is a circle centered on ground zero of a given radius, inside of which a weapon has a 50% chance of landing. So the smaller you can get that circle, the better.

Also, how are the accuracy/guidance systems of the SS-18/19/25/27 compared to one another?

Dionis , Accuracy like the question how deep the Russian submarine can dive is best left unanswered, If you want to believe janes its less than or equal to 500 m 🙂

If you are arming a Missile with N-warhead a CEP of few Km hardly matters.

But I see no reasons why the newer BM from Russia like Topol-M or Bulava cant be converted to Conventional Strike Roles along the line which US is thinking

The SS-N-23 didnt receive any new designation , The changes to Sineva includes much improved Reentry Vehical With A New warhed ( MIRV reduced to 3 from 4 as in original ) , The new warhed were developed by the Makeyev Design Bureau together with VNIITF-Chelyabinsk-70 and carries a new charge , The guidance system from the now cancelled Grom/Bark( Now superceeded by Bulava ) was adpoted which allows her to fire at improved depressed traj and greatly improved accuracy to avoid early detection and improve anti-missile features.

Even TOPOL-M has MIRVed warheads.

The TOPOL-M could be MIRV’d with 3 Warhead and the Russians are still studying the possiblity of MIRV’ng it , Most likely they wont as MIRV’ng involves recuction in its decoys and countermeasures which would compromise its Anti-Missile System , A single 750 kt ~ 1MT warhead for Topol-M will suffice without compromising on its Excellent Ballistic and Anti-Missile Characteristics.

If merely keeping up with numbers is a concern , They might well go for Land Based Bulava in Numbers as the Bulava already carries 6 MIRV warhead

Also, are the SS-N-18/20/23 MIRVed?

They were MIRVed when made, with the START 2 treaty reducing ICBMs to one warhead, and banning heavy weight ICBMs like the SS-18 outright it was looking a bit grim, but START 2 has been dropped so the Russians can retain their MIRVED missiles. Even TOPOL-M has MIRVed warheads.

50 or so Topol-Ms I think.

Thanks Garry, Neptune.

Also, how are the accuracy/guidance systems of the SS-18/19/25/27 compared to one another?

Also, are the SS-N-18/20/23 MIRVed?

One Delta IV, called Tula, has been refitted with the new Sineva system, which is an improvement over the older SS-N-23, not sure if NATO is going to give it a new designation.

The Delta IIIs still have SS-N-18, although I doubt there are many that still have those tubes filled… They are more used for space launches than for anything else.

How many Topol-M do they actually have in service now?

SS-18s and SS-19s are still MIRVed. The SS-25 is called Topol and SS-27 is Topol-M. The missiles at sea currently are SS-N-20s in the remaining Typhoons, except one typhoon, which is a test vessel for the new Bulava, or SS-N-30 I think. The Delta IVs have SS-N-23s, and I think the Delta IIIs have SS-N-18s. Pretty soon the Bulavas will be the standard SLBM and will be used in the Boreys and probably retrofitted to any surviving Typhoons too. Not sure what is happening to the Deltas, esp the Delta IVs.
On land the SS-18s will probably be kept for warhead numbers till a new larger missile can be devised, and Topol-Ms will continue to be built as the new standard mobile ICBM.

I was just curious as to what exactly the Russians currently have going for themselves as far as ICBMs go, and even SLBMs maybe..

Are the SS-18/19s still in service and are they MIRVed or all single warhead now? Also, what about the SS-25/27? The Topol-M is of course being put in as “the” ICBM for Russia now, but how do all 4 of these missiles compare to each other?

Also, what about the SLBMs in service on the Delta 4s/Typhoons/Borei?

http://russianforces.org/