Putin about new Russian "nuclear missile"

I think the main problem with carrying lots of warheads would be space in the warhead bus. They would probably need a nose extension and perhaps multiple bus’s to carry 20-30 warheads.

It would certainly save a lot of money having 1,500 warheads in 50 missiles than having 1,500 warheads in 150 missiles… fewer ICBM bases, fewer actual missiles etc etc.

Regarding the “Hypersonic Glide Vehicle. Tested from STILLETO earlier this year” …forgive my ignorance but I would have thought all reentry vehicles would be hypersonic from ICBMs, and the US supposedly introduced MARVs a long time ago, so I don’t think a manouvering reentry vehicle is new. I think the new weapon might have MARV warheads for improved accuracy, but the new technology that no other nuclear power has is probably either plasma stealth for the warheads or mobile missile launchers (rail or vehicle based). I tend to prefer the former, but it could be either or both.

I think the SS-18 will be able to carry much more than 10 warheads. SS-24 has a throw away weighgt of about 4000kg and it carries 10 warheads of 300KT each and even if the SS-18 does not carry the 20 warheads of 300KT. If it carries 15 warheads it should have enough weight left to carry decoys. The extreme scenario of a Satan(I love the name SATAN) Carrying 30 warheads was developed late 70 to early 80 to overwhelm any US starwar defences. If the size of the warhead is brought to aroung 50KT-100KT i think given th massive throwaway weight of Satan it should be able to carry 30 warheads.
Just the number is mind boggling for me 308-ss18 * 30 = 9240 warheads that should overwhelm any damn defences. What happened to SS-18 are they still deployed. they should deploy atleast 50 of them to keep anyone at bay

True that. With the throw weight is declared as either 7200 or 8800 kg depending on variant, the question would be how much each MIRV weighs, then you could figure out how much weight is left for decoys and the like.

Decoys may account for the 30 vehicles on the SS-18.

True, I was just pointing out that a modified SLBM flight profile would be a way to get around a boost-phase interceptor.

“Earlier this year, a senior Defense Ministry official was quoted as telling news agencies that Russia had developed a weapon that could make the United States’ proposed missile-defense system useless.”

Depressed-angle SLBM shots.

Hypersonic Glide Vehicle. Tested from STILLETO earlier this year. The next launch from the Russians under START will be an SS-27 between now and the end of the year.

TJ

SS-18 MIRV capability

The SS-18 are infact capable of taking upto 30 MIrv and they were limited by the Strategic limitation treaties(some treaties). These treaties imposed all kinds of limitations including the number of MIRV ICBM can carry to ranges of Tu-22M. i aslo read that in the the book Soviet war machine. In case of an emergency or requirement these giants can carry upto 30 MRV(not MIRV) just to overwhelm a ABM System.

8 1.3 megaton MIRVs
10 550 kiloton MIRVs
10 750 kiloton MIRVs
1 24 megaton warhead

Those are the different payloads for the SS-18 that I’ve seen, nothing close to thirty MIRVs…

I Really like the Russian ICBM’s man. They look gorgeous. The SS-18 is infact capable of carrying 30 MIRV and 10 of these Gaints can probably overwhelm any ABM shield. Now that the ABM treaty and also limitation treaties have been scrapped what happens if these gaints bo back to 30 warheads. Will it be against any treaty. if they can field anything new with the same throw away weight of a SS-18. that should be great. i dont think any American ABM shield will hold up to such a missile

“Earlier this year, a senior Defense Ministry official was quoted as telling news agencies that Russia had developed a weapon that could make the United States’ proposed missile-defense system useless.”

Depressed-angle SLBM shots.

Russia Successfully Tests Ballistic Missile

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

MOSCOW — Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces successfully test-fired a heavy intercontinental ballistic missile on Wednesday from the Ural Mountains region to the Kamchatka Peninsula in the Far East, Russian news agencies reported.

It was the first time that an RS-20V Voevoda, which NATO (search) identifies as the SS-18 Satan, had been fired from Russia since the 1991 Soviet collapse, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported. The Interfax news agency said the missile had hit its target on a testing ground on Kamchatka, more than 6,000 kilometers (3,750 miles) to the East.

The RS-20 intercontinental ballistic missile is the heaviest in the inventory of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces.

The Russian strategic forces have conducted regular test launches of Soviet-built ballistic missiles to check their readiness. The post-Soviet funding shortage has left the military struggling to extend the lifetime of Soviet-built missiles, since the government lacks the funds to quickly replace them with new weapons.

President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Russia is developing a new form of nuclear missile unlike those held by other countries, news agencies reported.

Plus

Topol-Ms have been deployed in silos since 1998. The missiles have a range of about 6,000 miles and reportedly can maneuver in ways that are difficult to detect.

The TOPOL-M has a MARV warhead as do some US missiles. I think the new technology this new weapon might introduce is plasma stealth.
This would meet the criteria of a weapon system not deployed by any other nation yet, and make the following quote true too.

Earlier this year, a senior Defense Ministry official was quoted as telling news agencies that Russia had developed a weapon that could make the United States’ proposed missile-defense system useless.

START treaties and the ABM treaty are not dependant upon each other…

Without the ABM treaty the START AND SALT talks never would have happened.

Just as SALT I and SALT II were not dependant upon each other… SALT II was never ratified by Congress and yet the START treaties were able to be…

Arms limitations treaties and reduction treaties are related… if you are reducing arms then that includes limitations as well… ie there is no point in signing a treaty to reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons you have if you do not agree to a limit to how many strategic nuclear weapons you can have.

As for Russia and a new ICBM… I think that they do need to keep their strategic deterrence credible, but against who? Who would attack them on such a level today? Their airforce, navy, and army need the funding alot more then their strategic forces do…

You are missing the point. Pretty soon those heavyweight ICBMs will reach their use by date and then maintaining the number of nuclear warheads will become very expensive. Building new ICBMs that hold 10 or even 20 warheads reduces by a factor of 10 or 20 the number of missiles they need to buy and control/protect etc etc.
Considering the fact that there is a very large military organisation expanding right next to them that they are not allowed to join and add to that the conventional military capability of the US the reality is that they need strategic nuclear weapons more than the US does… and the US certainly isn’t withdrawing its nuclear weapons from service any time soon.

The reality is that the Russians will probably move to a much smaller conventional force backed up by a powerful strategic nuclear force. Conventionally it will be comparable to the British Army or French Army, though better equipped with more all round forces.

They should be more worried about Chetchnya then their nuclear aersenal.

Modelling their national defence forces for use in guerilla wars hardly makes any more sense than the US doing the same now that Ex-Soviet countries are now entering NATO.

this new missile they’re planning is obviously a replacement for the SS-24 SCALPEL.

But what quality advantage will it have over all other weapons in the class? Is it the rail capability… as the Ukraine doens’t operate any ICBMs, and MX is deployed in fixed silos? Or is it something like Plasma Stealth?

I posted about this new 4.4t ICBM some time ago- as I said then, this new missile they’re planning is obviously a replacement for the SS-24 SCALPEL. Just as the Topol-M is the modernized, all-Russian replacement for the Soviet Topol, this new one will be a modernized, all-Russian replacement for the Soviet Molodets, which was produced entirely in Ukraine.

It’s all about weltgeltung. The Russians will not play the second fiddle for too long. The more the EU and the U.S. alienate, the more important Russia will become for the EU. Putin thinks in long terms. Dangerous guy, but the best politician in the White world today.

I think you need to deal with things, there will be no Democrat in the White House for a very long time. The Democratic Party needs to come to grips with this as well…

START treaties and the ABM treaty are not dependant upon each other…

Just as SALT I and SALT II were not dependant upon each other… SALT II was never ratified by Congress and yet the START treaties were able to be…

As for Russia and a new ICBM… I think that they do need to keep their strategic deterrence credible, but against who? Who would attack them on such a level today? Their airforce, navy, and army need the funding alot more then their strategic forces do…

They should be more worried about Chetchnya then their nuclear aersenal.

Sounds like Putin is trying to keep his populace’s mind off that troubled area…

CAG out…

My remark about START-II was more aimed at the U.S. side and its future implications for the time after Bush’s second term (given the propability of a Democratic president in 2008 and the Democrat’s position on strategic defense). With the last MX going offline, only Russia will have those heavy ICBMs with higher count MIRVS (10 vs 3). And that has some significance when it comes to a follow-on to the Minuteman III planned for about 2015/20. I think it is save to speculate that there will be increased communality between future U.S. ICBMs and SLBMs, following Russia’s example, all with at least six MIRVs. We’ll see.

Concerning Distiller’s remarks about the START-II treaty, it is not a matter of having
become dead letter. It was formaly killed and burried by the Moscow Treaty signed by Bush
and Putin. If you read the fine print of that treaty you’ll realize that the quid pro quo
for russian acquiescence to the ABM treaty abrrogation is the de facto scrapping of START-II provisions.

Both START and SALT talks were based on the ABM treaty. Without the ABM treaty the SALT and START treaties become meaningless.

This is probably a good thing for Russia as START II got rid of all heavy multi MIRV ICBMs and limited MIRVS to one per missile. This would have made it more expensive for the Russians to maintain a credible threat and the result would probably have been that the Russians would have just kept a lot fewer warheads than they were allowed to and just kept as many as they could afford.

Now this sheds a new light on the report some months ago of the test of a manouevrable hypersonic
device launched by a russian ICBM: it must have been a prototype of warheads for the new
heavyweight ICBM in the works.
Manoeuvrability should work as one countermeasure to Missile Defense and maybe
for precision strike capability.

Concerning Distiller’s remarks about the START-II treaty, it is not a matter of having
become dead letter. It was formaly killed and burried by the Moscow Treaty signed by Bush
and Putin. If you read the fine print of that treaty you’ll realize that the quid pro quo
for russian acquiescence to the ABM treaty abrrogation is the de facto scrapping of START-II provisions.

The SSBNs are quite ok. 1 Typhoon with 10 SS-N-20. 1 Typhoon for testing Bulava. 7 Delta IV of which all are quite well trained and kept (16 missiles each). And several Delta IIIs, of which one did a launch last week and of which some others serve to do satellite launches, which is of course equally good as a real firing of Ballistic missiles.

If Russia really fields new ICBMs with MIRVs, then START-II is definitely dead (for all that still had thought otherwise). And that there’s no outcry from the U.S. indicates, that they have no problem with that, more, that they intend to go the same road.

The last MX Peacekeeper will be retired by September 2005. Current arsenal is 17 MX missiles on active duty with 10 MIRVs each. Plus about 500 Minuteman III with about 800 warheads. Plus about 2700 warheads on SLBMs.

Russia has about 130 SS-19 operational (6 warheads each), plus 120 SS-18 (10 warheads each), plus 15 railbased SS-24 (10 warheads each), plus about 310 truckbased SS-25 (single warhead), plus 36 silo-based SS-27 (up to 6 warheads). The status of the SLBMs is unclear, of the 15 SSBN only a handful is operational.

Anyway, enough stuff to blow up everything.