Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 01, 2012 4:20 am

    What do you think?

    Should Russia go for less than the 1,500 warheads allowed in New Start to save money and benefit from the peace dividend?

    Or is it a time to maintain a MAD deterrent force in the face of growing expenditure in the west on ABM systems?

    Is it time to dust off more exotic weapons like nuclear powered cruise missiles?
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 583
    Points : 632
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  SOC on Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:48 am

    GarryB wrote:What do you think?

    Usually I try not to after midnight, but what the hell unshaven

    Should Russia go for less than the 1,500 warheads allowed in New Start to save money and benefit from the peace dividend? Or is it a time to maintain a MAD deterrent force in the face of growing expenditure in the west on ABM systems?

    Depends on their strategy. If they believe fewer than 1500 warheads can get the job done, then go for fewer. If they feel that 1500 are required to maintain the balance and guarantee deterrence, then go for 1500. What irks me is when the press labels Russia's current modernization and replacement efforts as some covert plan to stage some military buildup hostile to the free world. I mean, damn, Topols are expiring (some are being extended, sure), so of course a new missile is going to be brought online to replace the things. China is no different, they're just modernizing everything all at once it seems these days. But they look different and eat strange food so it must really be part of a sinister world domination plot as well, go figure.

    Although my taste for spicy Chinese food would not necesarily look unkindly on our new Chinese overlords.

    Is it time to dust off more exotic weapons like nuclear powered cruise missiles?

    The USSR could've done nuke-powered missiles...Russia, not so much. All about the political geography. The USSR could've easily tested a mess of these all over the ranges in the Kazakh SSR. Now that Kazakhstan is independent, I'm not sure Russia could find an effective place to test some, or that Kazakhstan would necessarily oblige. That was a big debate when the USA was investigating the Pluto nuke-powered cruise missile: where in the hell do you test the damn things? The exhaust is going to be decidedly unhealthy to whatever it overflys. During wartime it's really no big deal, because if Russia is shooting these off then you've got inbound megatonnage to worry about as well so a few extra isotopes scattered about aren't really a problem, unfortunately. But peacetime is a whole different ballgame. At least, that was one of Pluto's problems. It was a ramjet, so maybe that meant a higher radioactive death zone behind it, I'd have to go back and reinvestigate nuke propulsion to see if there are any legitimately cleaner ideas. Although it's still certainly something you don't want crashing. Remember the Ukraine downing an airliner with an S-200? What if one of these goes off course during testing and crashes in or near a foreign population zone?

    Remember who the primary target is. It's still the USA. That's not a political statement, it's just the way the world is. What does the US lack? Continental air defenses. If you want an exotic, off-the-wall delivery system, well, the USSR almost got it dead on, but Chelomey's mouth was making promises his technology couldn't deliver. That's right, the Meteorit. One of the most badass and ignored weapon concepts of the entire Cold War. High speed and high altitude would make them damn near impossible for CONUS defenses to smack without tasking AEGIS ships all over the coastline and the Arctic. And then who's watching the CVBGs, or looking for ICBMs? Throw in Marabou and separating MIRVs and AEGIS may find a swarm of inbound Meteorits to be a very nasty suprise. Put 'em on new SSGNs and they've got survivable launch platforms (well...survivable until they fire).

    Arguably, one of the reasons for the end of the Cold War was the B-2. The USSR pretty much balked at the amount of money the IADS would require to keep up (I'm speaking in broad strokes here, be quiet and listen a minute). Now look at the state of the US economy. Want to be REALLY sneaky? Announce plans to introduce a modernized Meteorit program. Watch the US defense budget crap its pants over the new threat that there really is no plan to remotely counter over a large scale.

    And to be truly SUPER sneaky, couple this with the announcement of an INF pull-out, and hint at Meteorit GLCM variants for Kaliningrad or the Southwestern MD.

    So if you ask me, a high-speed/altitude nuclear-armed cruise missile is the way to go if you want something other than an ICBM.
    avatar
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1702
    Points : 1863
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  TheArmenian on Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:26 pm

    SOC wrote:

    So if you ask me, a high-speed/altitude nuclear-armed cruise missile is the way to go if you want something other than an ICBM.

    OK. How about a subsonic but stealthy long range cruise missile? Something like the Kh-101/102?
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 583
    Points : 632
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  SOC on Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:55 pm

    Ah, but they're already doing that with the Kh-101/102. One difference with Meteorit is a theoretically much larger warhead, giving it a different set of nuclear strike missions it can be used for. With enough accuracy and a penetrating warhead, an SSGN near the coast could use them as counterforce weapons, whereas a smaller missile like the Kh-101/102 doesn't have the punch for that type of role.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:10 am

    What irks me is when the press labels Russia's current modernization and replacement efforts as some covert plan to stage some military buildup hostile to the free world.

    Bothers me too... in addition to needing replacement because they are old, many systems also need replacement because they are not Russian, so it makes sense to create an all Russian replacement so spares and support are not an issue with a foreign country... friendly or not friendly.

    It was a ramjet, so maybe that meant a higher radioactive death zone behind it, I'd have to go back and reinvestigate nuke propulsion to see if there are any legitimately cleaner ideas.

    There were several ideas including clean and not so clean options, but the stumbling block was the shielding of the reactor made the payload pitiful, and in the conventional jet models the flight speed plus the 90 tons of lead shielding meant the nuclear bomber was as vulnerable to conventional air defences as any other bomber but with a fraction of the payload.

    The beauty of a missile is to remove all that shielding as there is no crew.

    Problem of course is that an ICBM is a much faster and more efficient delivery system...

    The advantage of a nuke powered cruise missile is that you can launch it in any direction to get to its target area, and a ramjet model flying at mach 3 at low level the shockwave would be lethal to unprotected people on the ground... the exhaust is just gravy as you command your missile to zig zag all over your enemies territory for the next 10 years...

    Crazy weapon. On so many levels.

    Arguably, one of the reasons for the end of the Cold War was the B-2. The USSR pretty much balked at the amount of money the IADS would require to keep up (I'm speaking in broad strokes here, be quiet and listen a minute).

    I totally agree, though I would include the threat of the Cruise missile along with a fleet of 100 or more B-2s they were planning was going to mean more radar sites, more S-300 class systems, more Mig-31s... more more more... at a time when they had just spent a fortune to get ICBM parity finally in the 1980s.

    Now look at the state of the US economy. Want to be REALLY sneaky? Announce plans to introduce a modernized Meteorit program. Watch the US defense budget crap its pants over the new threat that there really is no plan to remotely counter over a large scale.

    I for one think the threat from Iran and the European ABM system is an example of a sneaky plan in operation.

    Of course it would be even sneakier to announce a plan and then outwardly go through the motions of implimenting that plan without ever actually spending any real money on it. Give it a huge budget but siphon the money off in devious ways to other programs like Health and Education.

    And to be truly SUPER sneaky, couple this with the announcement of an INF pull-out, and hint at Meteorit GLCM variants for Kaliningrad or the Southwestern MD.

    Of course perhaps they actually already are... Brahmos II with scramjet propulsion?

    Perhaps they can invent an all new class of ballistic missile?

    A sub delivered missile with a 10-12m long payload section that holds 5-6 cruise missiles. The SLBM could have a ballistic range of maybe 5-6,000km, but as it reenters it releases a heat resistent pod containing 6 cruise missiles that splits in half as it reenters... one half bursts open and hypersonic cruise missiles are ejected and remain at high altitude and high speed using scramjet propulsion to fly 3-4,000km to their target... they can afford to have a huge fuel capacity because the SLBM accelerates them and lifts them to altitude saving them a lot of energy that can be translated to range.
    The other half of the pod deploys a parachute and releases its cruise missiles which descend and fly at subsonic speed at very low altitude with stealthy designs and 5,000km ranges.

    This would mean a reach of up to 11,000km and a variety of threats for the defence to deal with without too much complication for the attacking force.

    In many ways I think hypersonic scramjet powered missiles are the future "warhead" of Russian ICBMs... designed specifically to defeat ABM systems.

    Austin

    Posts : 6230
    Points : 6636
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Austin on Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:23 pm

    Russia and the United States: Pushing Tensions to the Limit?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:09 pm

    I wonder how the US would feel about foreign countries interfering in US elections the way the US likes to interfere in elections around the planet.

    Perhaps the Russians should start supporting and arming fringe groups in the US?

    What goes around comes around... the irony is that the US is likely going to get to choose between Obama and someone like Gingrich or Romney... Wow... talk about the bestest and brightest!!!
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10215
    Points : 10703
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russian Nuclear Forces numbers:

    Post  George1 on Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:30 pm

    http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/2/87.full.pdf+html


    Last edited by George1 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 7:01 pm; edited 4 times in total

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:40 pm


    The most clear example of what lowest level of reliability and lousy factual accuracy can achieve a publication relying on....newspapers data and low level uneducated guess-works as its main sources. Smile Smile

    One can only hope the similar level of understanding (or,for better say, lack of it) become more and more widespread among western analysts ...even if i have a seriosu doubt that outside works aimed to open public this remain true. Rolling Eyes
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10215
    Points : 10703
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  George1 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:38 am

    http://russianforces.org/missiles/
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:06 am

    Much more respectable site...
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10215
    Points : 10703
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  George1 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:22 am

    Tu-160 numbered at 11 from 13. It seems that modernization has begun.

    SS-29 production is satisfying

    SLBM will be dramatically increased when Borei's come into service
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Russian Nuclear Triad tested- October 19th.

    Post  TR1 on Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:52 am

    The Russian nuclear triad was tested today:

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2012/10/successful_r-29r_slbm_launch_f.shtml

    R-29R was launched from 667BDR.

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2012/10/test_launch_of_a_topol_missile_2.shtml

    Topol was launched.

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2012/10/bombers_launch_cruise_missiles.shtml

    And the Strategi launched 4 cruise missiles.

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2012/10/bombers_launch_cruise_missiles.shtml

    In other news, Pantsir was tested against actual cruise missiles launched by Tu-95. The target was shot down.

    http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/

    Austin

    Posts : 6230
    Points : 6636
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Austin on Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:47 pm

    Interview with RVSN Commander Colonel General Sergei Karakayev

    http://vpk.name/news/80831_raketnyie_garantii_bezopasnosti.html

    Austin

    Posts : 6230
    Points : 6636
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Austin on Sun Sep 15, 2013 3:23 pm

    FAS: Status of World Nuclear Forces


    link
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10215
    Points : 10703
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  George1 on Tue Jan 21, 2014 9:56 pm

    Russian strategic forces in January 2014
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:12 am

    Austin wrote:FAS: Status of World Nuclear Forces


    link

    Funny numbers, not even close to reality.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:11 am

    afaik the russky nuke stockpile has decreased dramatically- a lot of it is tac nukes that are being replaced by PGMs.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    FAS: Status of World Nuclear Forces

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:48 am

    afaik the russky nuke stockpile has decreased dramatically- a lot of it is tac nukes that are being replaced by PGMs.

    That chart shows strategic nukes only.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4495
    Points : 4674
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:51 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Austin wrote:FAS: Status of World Nuclear Forces


    link

    Funny numbers, not even close to reality.

    Just like MSNBC not to tell the whole truth, here's the State Dept. publishing the numbers found in the Start treaty:

    http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/224236.htm
    avatar
    Hannibal Barca

    Posts : 1241
    Points : 1263
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Hannibal Barca on Sat Apr 05, 2014 9:19 pm

    Do you really think we know, even approximately, how much everyone has?
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Apr 05, 2014 9:24 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Austin wrote:FAS: Status of World Nuclear Forces


    link

    Funny numbers, not even close to reality.

    Just like MSNBC not to tell the whole truth, here's the State Dept. publishing the numbers found in the Start treaty:

    http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/224236.htm

    Not only that this list you posted only includes ICBM's ready to fire and not the entire nuclear stockpile, further all states are investigated and controlled due the START treaty but not Israel the estimated number succeeds 400 ready to fire BMs which can reach europe.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    FAS: Status of World Nuclear Forces

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:27 am

    Austin wrote:FAS: Status of World Nuclear Forces


    link

    Does anybody know why this was posted? Exclamation Exclamation Exclamation 
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Viktor on Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:29 pm

    Russian nuclear forces just got bigger Very Happy

    New START September 2014 numbers

    Russia substantially increased the number of deployed launchers - from 498 to 528 - and deployed warheads - from 1512 to 1643. The total number of launchers increased as well, but not nearly as dramatically - from 905 in March 2014 to 911 in September 2014
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3019
    Points : 3144
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  kvs on Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:17 pm

    Viktor wrote:Russian nuclear forces just got bigger Very Happy

    New START September 2014 numbers

    Russia substantially increased the number of deployed launchers - from 498 to 528 - and deployed warheads - from 1512 to 1643. The total number of launchers increased as well, but not nearly as dramatically - from 905 in March 2014 to 911 in September 2014

    Great news! The whole missile shield boondoggle was predicated on continued arms reduction by Russia. Obama tried to
    get a new START agreement with Russia but that went nowhere. Russia should increase the number of launchers substantially
    even if that means breaking the existing treaty. Nuclear weapons in sufficient amounts is what has kept the global peace
    since WWII.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:59 am