[Home] [Blog] [Silo-based RS-24]
Silo-based RS-24
This is a somewhat old news (and not really much of a news at that), but it is worth mentioning anyway. Speaking about the RS-24 deployment plans - the Rocket Forces hope to have one more test this year and deploy the missile in 2009 - Nikolai Solovtsov, the commander of the Rocket Forces, mentioned that the missile will be deployed in silos as well as on road mobile launchers.
This should not come as a surprise - after all, RS-24 is a MIRVed Topol-M, which exists in both versions. Still, so far only the mobile version has been tested (the upcoming test will be the one of a mobile version as well). The difference between silo-based and and road-mobile versions of the missile is probably not very substantial, my guess is that the silo-based RS-24 would have to be tested before it's deployed.
[Rocket Forces] [November 19, 2008] [#]
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://russianforces.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/770
In a number of stories that accompanied the test launch of a Topol missile today, various Rocket Forces representatives told journalists about the plans for this year. The Rocket Forces expect to add six missiles to the deployed force. These...
[Rocket Forces tell about plans for 2009] [April 10, 2009 10:50 AM] [#]
The Rocket Forces added a new battalion of three RS-24 Yars missiles to the missile division in Teykovo. Together with the first full RS-24 regiment that began combat duty in August 2011, this brings the total number of RS-24 missiles...
[RS-24 deployment in Teykovo, Novosibirsk, and Kozelsk] [December 21, 2011 3:26 PM] [#]
The Strategic Rocket Forces are removing some of the UR-100NUTTH/SS-19 missiles from silos at the Kozelsk division to make room for future deployment of silo-based RS-24 Yars missiles. Deployment of silo-based RS-24 missiles in Kozelsk was expected for...
[RS-24 missiles to replace UR-100NUTTH in Kozelsk] [July 24, 2012 3:36 PM] [#]
I would suggest the deployment of the RS-24 in silos is a very big deal. I suspect the deployment of new MIRV silo ballistic missiles, as the old SS-18 and '19s end their service life, will guarantee an American response. Minuteman will be replaced; something not universally thought would happen in the Pentagon today.
Frank Shuler
[Frank Shuler ] [November 19, 2008] [#]
Any info on numbers planned?
[Feanor ] [November 20, 2008] [#]
Strictly my opinion:
I would think the minimum number of new replacement ICBMs would be 150; perhaps 300 is a better guess. That would provide for a force of 100 at each of the three American bases that now support Minuteman IIIs. I don't see any of the existing Air Force ICBM bases being closed in the future. A more interesting question is how many warheads these new missiles will deploy with. I guess that is up to Russia too.
And how many warheads? 3 or 6?
[Kolokol ] [November 21, 2008] [#]
Kolokol
Only speculation on my part.
I think there are several variables; one, of course, is Russia's capabilities and the second, obviously, is China. It has been widely assumed here that the successor to Minuteman, if needed at all, would be a small, single-warhead silo missile and housed in the very same silos that the Minuteman III fleet now reside. That might change if a "heavy" missile like the Peacekeeper was built or if a mobile component to the land-based US nuclear deterrent was deemed needed. My opinion is that the USAF considers ICBMs "dinosaurs" and would far prefer to spend its monies on conventional weapon systems that actually might be used in combat. However, new Russian MIRV silo missiles would be hard for the Pentagon, and Congress, to ignore.
I don't know why silo-based MIRV ICBMs are such a big deal to Americans. After all, SLBMs these days are probably just as accurate, and can be literally fired from anywhere, with depressed trajectories and even have greater throw weight than these piddly Topols. Silos nowdays are vulnerable even to conventional PGMs.
[So?] [November 22, 2008] [#]
So... (forgive my pun) why would Russia with all the expanses of Siberia, put any ballistic missiles, much less MIRV weapons, in silos?
I suspect it's is because silo missiles are the most accurate when striking silo missiles. They are the best first strike weapons...
Frank Shuler:
Silo basing is cheaper? Most of the US deterrent is at sea anyway. Personally, I think land-based ICBMs are a dumb idea. It's just this way, they can deflect attention from the failures of the SLBM program. Silos can be installed a handful at a time, which, while not looking threatening on the world stage, gives the patriotic crowd at home the illusion of continuous rearmament, when the reality is quite pathetic. Every new silo deployment is a (domestic) news item. OTOH, launching a sub with only a handful of missiles will not fool even the domestic TV audience. It's also easier to steal budget money this way.
Silo basing is certainly cheaper if you're using existing silos as Russia is today with the SS-27 fleet; and I suspect will be in the case with the new RS-24s. I doubt there will be any new Russian silo construction anytime soon. Land-based ICBMs are certainly less expensive than the SLBM option. Ballistic missile technology at sea is just a far more complicated, and thus expensive, alternative to nuclear deterrence. Think of it this way, the new "Yury Dolgoruky" will deploy with 16 Bulava missiles that can carry 96 warheads. Average patrol rates of Russian strategic submarines are two, 30-day patrols per year. So, these weapons are available to the Kremlin 16.66% of the year while 96 silo or road-mobile SS-27s have perhaps a 90% operational rate in the same time period. Perhaps the "Yury Dolgoruky" can still launch her missiles at port in a national emergency but this is highly problematic. A "boomer" in port is not an asset but rather a target. Nuclear ballistic missile submarines are a tremendous resource for deterrence but a very expensive platform to afford. Today, if Russia wants to maintain and enhance its nuclear deterrence, I would fill up the silos with the SS-27 and build as many mobile single-warhead SS-27s as I could. This strategy provides the most affordable, and most effective, nuclear deterrence possible for Moscow.
Russia is no safer or more "powerful" with 10,000 nuclear warheads than she is with 1,000.
And, I completely agree. The military-industrial-complex is alive and well in both Russia and the United States. Nuclear weapons are no longer military but political weapons.
Hehe. I was misunderstood. My question was in response to the original item. Does anyone have any idea on numbers of RS-24 to be deployed next year?
I wonder too if the rate of Russian ICBM deployment will change in the future. If not, I guess we can assume the normal annual production/deployment of, say, eight?
8 missiles next year?
Just a guess but based on the recent history of Russian ICBM deployments, eight sounds right. With the stated goal of introducing the RS-24 in 2009, the question is how many different ICBMs will Russia continue to produce? Will the RS-24 supersede the "standard" SS-27 in production? Or better put, will the RS-24 replace both the silo SS-27 and the road mobile SS-27s as well?
And back to the central question, will Russia increase ICBM production?