NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Strategic Weapons Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Topol The Unlimited

December 7, 2008: Russia is working on a new ICBM (the RS-24), with an emphasis on equipping it with decoys and other deception measures to get past U.S. anti-missile systems. This new missile is believed to be an upgrade of the existing Topol-M. The new Bulava is also a modified version of the land based Topol-M, which was the last new ICBM Russia developed before the Cold War ended in 1991. The RS-24 has been tested three times in the last two years. Russia plans to put the RS-24 in service next year.

The new Bulava SLBMs (Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles) has also finally gone into production. The Bulava will equip the new Borei class SSBN (nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine). The Borei class boats replace the aging Cold War era SSBNs, which are being retired because of safety and reliability issues and the high expense of running them. Nuclear submarines are one area of military spending that did not get cut back sharply after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Despite several test failures, the Russians were confident in the basic technology in the Bulava. The Russians knew there would be failures, and knew that the two most recent U.S. SLBMs had a 13 percent (23 tests of the Trident I) and two percent (49 tests of Trident II) failure rate. What did make many Russians nervous was the fact that the Bulava is replacement for an earlier SLBM that had to be cancelled during development because of too many test failures. The Bulava is basically a navalized version of the successful Topol ICBM. This is the primary reason the Russians moved forward with Bulava.

The 45 ton Bulava SCBM is a little shorter than the Topol M, so that it could fit into the missile tube. Thus Bulava has a shorter range of some 8,000 kilometers. Bulava has three stages and uses solid fuel. Currently, each Bulava carries a single 500 kiloton nuclear weapon, plus decoys and the ability to maneuver. The warhead is also shielded to provide protection from the electronic pulse of nearby nuclear explosions. Take away all of these goodies, and the Bulava could be equipped with up to ten smaller (150 kiloton) warheads. But the big thing is still trying to defeat American anti-missile systems. Russia is paranoid about their nuclear missiles, as the rest of their armed forces are a shambles, and only the ICBMs and SLBMs really provide any clout.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article INFORMATION WARFARE: We Can Take The Sky From You


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
Lance Blade    ?   12/7/2008 8:39:09 AM
"Last November, for the third time (the second in two months), a test launch of the Bulava was a failure."
 
hXXp://en.rian.ru/russia/20081128/118602949.html
 

MOSCOW, November 28 (RIA Novosti) - The Dmitry Donskoi Typhoon-class strategic nuclear-powered submarine has carried out another test launch of a Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile, a Defense Ministry source said on Friday.

"The Bulava was launched from a submerged position in the White Sea toward a target located at the Kura test site on the Kamchatka Peninsula," the source said.

He later said it had successfully engaged its designated target on the Kamchatka Peninsula about 6,700 kilometers (4,200 miles) east of Moscow.

The previous test of the Bulava missile was carried out on September 18.

 
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    The Sepytember 187 yest wasd a functional failure.   12/7/2008 9:17:48 AM

"Last November, for the third time (the second in two months), a
test launch of the Bulava was a failure."

 

hXXp://en.rian.ru/russia/20081128/118602949.html


 


MOSCOW, November 28 (RIA Novosti) - The Dmitry Donskoi Typhoon-class
strategic nuclear-powered submarine has carried out another test launch
of a Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile, a Defense Ministry
source said on Friday.



"The Bulava was launched from a submerged position in the White Sea
toward a target located at the Kura test site on the Kamchatka
Peninsula," the source said.



He later said it had successfully engaged its designated target on the
Kamchatka Peninsula about 6,700 kilometers (4,200 miles) east of
Moscow.



The previous test of the Bulava missile was carried out on September 18.


 


It missed.
 
Quote    Reply

Lance Blade       12/7/2008 2:31:52 PM
What about the November launch? All sources report it being fully successful.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Claims versus reality.   12/8/2008 10:42:23 AM

What about the November launch? All sources report it being fully successful.


Until we see the US intercepted telemetry published, no comment.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

warpig       12/8/2008 12:45:11 PM



What about the November launch? All sources report it being fully successful.






Until we see the US intercepted telemetry published, no comment.





Herald








 
When/where is intercepted telemetry published, and why isn't someone in prison for it?

 
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       12/8/2008 1:37:55 PM







What about the November launch? All sources report it being fully successful.














Until we see the US intercepted telemetry published, no comment.













Herald





















 

When/where is intercepted telemetry published, and why isn't someone in prison for it?



 


NASA and ESA publishes basic tracking data on all foreign launched objects detected that achieve orbital or suborbital menace to orbital navigation status.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       12/8/2008 3:28:59 PM
I see.  I would guess that's not based on intercepted telemetry (unless there's some sort of multinational or international agreement to broadcast some data in the clear on a sort of "guard" channel or some such), but I admit I have no idea how they determine their data.  Intercepted telemetry is a category of intelligence under FISINT, and I'm used to seeing that sort of thing being significantly classified.
 
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       12/8/2008 5:32:19 PM

I see.  I would guess that's not based on intercepted telemetry (unless there's some sort of multinational or international agreement to broadcast some data in the clear on a sort of "guard" channel or some such), but I admit I have no idea how they determine their data.  Intercepted telemetry is a category of intelligence under FISINT, and I'm used to seeing that sort of thing being significantly classified.

 

Since ICBM  launches make everybody nervous, the test launches are very publicly announced and very publicly telemetered to let everybody see it is a test launch and not a war-shot.

Host nation internal bird test data is encrypted, but you can't disguise a visible trajectory failure-not even from the public community eventually-no matter how much you lie about it..
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

Lance Blade       12/9/2008 12:32:12 PM



Since ICBM  launches make everybody nervous, the test launches are very publicly announced and very publicly telemetered to let everybody see it is a test launch and not a war-shot.



Host nation internal bird test data is encrypted, but you can't disguise a visible trajectory failure-not even from the public community eventually-no matter how much you lie about it..


 

Herald


 


This is Topol-M though, a quaziballistic missile that weaves in and out of the dense levels of the atmosphere. How will you possibly be able to plot that on a graph? And even if you could, how could you tell if the final warhead has impacted the target or not?
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       12/9/2008 12:37:21 PM







Since ICBM  launches make everybody nervous, the test launches are very publicly announced and very publicly telemetered to let everybody see it is a test launch and not a war-shot.







Host nation internal bird test data is encrypted, but you can't disguise a visible trajectory failure-not even from the public community eventually-no matter how much you lie about it..






 



Herald






 






This is Topol-M though, a quaziballistic missile that weaves in and out of the dense levels of the atmosphere. How will you possibly be able to plot that on a graph? And even if you could, how could you tell if the final warhead has impacted the target or not?

Like I said, don't believe the LIES. No rocket or kill body made can do what you claim at those Mach numbers. Not even the legendary D-5 does that..

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

razputin       12/10/2008 1:06:43 PM
Herad you are in denial buddy )

 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Raz. old buddy.   12/10/2008 4:01:30 PM

Herad you are in denial buddy )




I know what I am talking about, to within about two decimal places
 
The Topol  M MARV bus+decoys  is yesterday's technology tomorrow.
.
Do your homework.
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

razputin       12/11/2008 5:54:30 PM

Razputin, who of us is not stubborn? :)


Herald is good guy despite he bursted all my bubbles in T-90 vs Abrams discussion.




He he.But then who has the time for all the details. Maybe only Herald)) I am more interested in the larger strategic picture then technicalities of some equipment. BTW T-90 is a 'death trap' compared to Abrams but with its mobility in high numbers with high tech comm equipment, some protective gear and a very well trained crue it could still be very effective. It all comes down to cost-benefit analysis.
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       12/11/2008 7:51:06 PM




Razputin, who of us is not stubborn? :)






Herald is good guy despite he bursted all my bubbles in T-90 vs Abrams discussion.











He he.But then who has the time for all the details. Maybe only Herald)) I am more interested in the larger strategic picture then technicalities of some equipment. BTW T-90 is a 'death trap' compared to Abrams but with its mobility in high numbers with high tech comm equipment, some protective gear and a very well trained crue it could still be very effective. It all comes down to cost-benefit analysis.

CBA for Russia is not the same as it is for the US.
 
The T-72M  (or the T-90) in say quantities of 45,000 would be just as effective inside the Russian combined arms system as 11,000 M-1s inside the American combined arms system.  Different tank gets used a different way. Not inferior-DIFFERENT.
 
Same goes for rockets.
 
The Topol M is akin in size to the Minuteman III but it is not used the same way as the Minuteman. For one thing, the Topol M is designed to fire from a mobile land-based launcher. Most observers fail to see that such a design requirement is for a post attack deterrent weapon-a DEFENSIVE strategic rocket designed to ride out a first strike and launch under local control in revenge after the enemy warheads hit..

The Minuteman III is a silo based surprise launch on warning rocket in that it is expected to launch before an enemy first strike hits.
 
This means that Russia expects to be hit without being able to do much about it until after the attack, but that she wants her attackers to know that they will die no matter what they do to the Rodina first. Thus Topol M will have all the bells and whistles that Russian rocket science can devise.
 
The US is not so pessimistic. We think we will be able to get warning in time to get our land based rockets aloft and fly out before enemy warheads hit. The Minuteman III tends to be more reliable and SIMPLER than Topol to use as a technical consequence.  
 
Does this mean Topol M is inferior? No. it means that what appears to be rockets similar in form and function isn't. Russian rockets are not the same as American rockets, and are not used the same way.
 
When you see Putin (through Medvedev) yell about US ABM systems, its because the US inadvertently stumbled onto the major vulnerability of Russian strategic rocketry. Russian ICBM buses are highly vulnerable during mid boost phase. Its just possible that American ABM rockets are good enough to reach far enough over the Earth's horizon to catch those buses before they separate out MARV kill bodies. This is why the threat Putin made to move Iskanders toward the Western Russian frontier. Russia wants to preserve her Topols as a second strike deterrent.  The American interceptors in Poland are not in a position to threaten the Russian Topol basing bastions, but the American OTH RADARS in the Czech Republic could give Alaskan based ABM interceptors the time and ballistic data they need to climb to meet a Russian strike over the North Pole-or so Russian scientists believe.
 
Frankly that Russian nightmare is nonsense, but if you are Putin, and you are a Russian patriot as well as an international  war criminal thug, would you take that risk that your scientists are wrong?
 
 Would you not also LIE about your own rockets, to reassure your own people, and also in the dim hope that enough foolish scientifically ignorant Americans would believe your lies, that the American ABM defense is useless that they, the Americans  would forgo ANY ABM defense at all?
 
Herald


 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       12/12/2008 7:36:41 AM

Herald do you consider that placing ABM defense in East Europe changes balance of  forces? Before this Russia and USA been able to guarantee destroy each other. Now situation changes, because ABM defense can make a possible reply kick from Russia impossible (but it is question also). 

 I repeat ABM defense in East Europe changes balance to USA.


This is means USA start offensive.



Shrug.
 
The Czech based radars cannot see that far or that deep to threaten your central Asian Russian missile bastions. If we had followed Putin's original desires to post our radars in Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, or in Turkey the range would have been myopic and the tau track too short.in duration to see Iranian or Pak rockets rise over the horizon to hit Europe. You need some idea of the ballistic path to see where the fall of the short is likely to occur. For that your radars need some setback.  The Czech radar sites give us terminal phase tracks as well as mid phase tracks so that Poland based terminal phase interceptors have a good chance to stop a one or two missile Iranian or Pakistani extortion launch. The oddity of it is that a US radar pointed north in Uzbekistan would put your central Asian rocket bastions at risk. It would also give away our technical tech tree on OTH radars to your technologists, so only a fool would take that Putin compromise; either Russian or American be he.
 
The balance of defense that should worry you is if the PRCs get an ABM capability of their own in Xinxiang province or if the Alaskan based ABMs grow into a full fledged CONUS system with an over the horizon mid-phase interceptor capability. Until you see American OTH detection and missile tracking radars sited on Severnya Zemlya or thereabouts and up to 500 interceptors on our side, that isn't going to happen with us. Physics limits. I can't speak for the PRCs showing such restraint, though. The geography and birthrate favors them once they solve the rocketry and computer problems they have to target your bastions either for ABM defense or counterforce. They already stole.your radars so they can see deep enough.
 
Herald 


 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy