Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

The thing with ABM is it works 10 % of time but makes the one who has believe it will work 90 % of time.

That leads to fatal misccalculaton for a first strike against the advesary with the belief that if the adversary counter strikes the remaining weapons can be intercepted with 90 % probability or perhaps more.

Not much consolation for the Russians when the US attacks thinking it has the advantage and finding it is rather more screwed than it ever thought possible.

New START data as of 1 March 2019

The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START numbers from the 1 March 2019 data exchange. Russia declared 1461 deployed warheads, 524 deployed launchers, and 760 total launchers. In September 2018 the numbers were 1420, 517, and 775 respectively.

The U.S. numbers in March 2019 were 1365 warheads, 656 deployed and 800 total launchers (1398, 659, and 800 in September 2018).

franco wrote:
New START data as of 1 March 2019

The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START numbers from the 1 March 2019 data exchange. Russia declared 1461 deployed warheads, 524 deployed launchers, and 760 total launchers. In September 2018 the numbers were 1420, 517, and 775 respectively.

The U.S. numbers in March 2019 were 1365 warheads, 656 deployed and 800 total launchers (1398, 659, and 800 in September 2018).

is there any source that we can have details about numbers per type of missiles?

Hehehehe... I remember in the 1990s when American experts were thinking they didn't need nuclear arms agreements with Russia any more because by about now (2020) the Russians would not have any nuclear forces left... they could not afford them... they were going to have second hand F-16s in service while NATO had F-35s and F-22s....

How things have changed... for the better...

France is in dire straits for years now. And look at their "leaders": Sarkozy, Holland, Macron...
Or "our partners" at the Potomac: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Bush III (Obongo), Trump...

Hole wrote:France is in dire straits for years now. And look at their "leaders": Sarkozy, Holland, Macron...
Or "our partners" at the Potomac: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Bush III (Obongo), Trump...

You conveniently left out your own country :-)
Inertia is a bitch...takes a special kinda leader to get out it. I think Trump is better than all of the others you mentioned (issue based support not on everything) in that he tries to meet his election promises and fight his own party and the system...if you look around real world, it is not an easy thing do that. The whole west is kind of in a transition phase and historically speaking that is a scary thing.

When you have a population of some tens or hundreds of million, there will always be 1 guy that will take the lead. This guy was Putin for them.

Same forbany bug country. If china or france or even US are destroyed economicaly there will be a guy to take the power and bring it back at top lvl.

Actually idiots and fools can just as easily get to the top if the path is properly prepared... Trump wanted good relations with Russia, but the democrats have poisoned that path so he can't take it... even though it makes sense for America... not so good for Russia of course.

China has been big for centuries, but needs to be taken in the right direction by the right leaders... you could put Stalin in that group too, but then you could argue that Russia was totally derailed when the Germans let Lenin go back to Russia and supported him... the idea was to destroy Russia as a threat by getting them out of the war.

Regarding the lethality of modern nuclear warheads with many having blast yields lower than 500 kt, I really wonder if there are enough in service to with either side for them to actually destroy each other.

Also in the event of a nuclear war many warheads would likely not ever make it to thier target at all due to unreliable or slow to respond delivery platforms.

We also now little about the effectiveness of multiple nuclear impacts on a large city and its population due to an unfortunate lack of examples to look back on. For all we know 50% of a city's population may get away completely unharmed after all the only two examples of nuclear weapons ever used although the y were less powerful than many tactical warheads still left many alive, hardly an apocalyptic effect.

Latest START numbers

The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START numbers from the 1 September 2019 data exchange. Russia declared 1426 deployed warheads, 513 deployed launchers, and 757 total launchers. In March 2019 the numbers were 1461, 524, and 760 respectively.

The U.S. numbers in September 2019 were 1376 warheads, 668 deployed and 800 total launchers (1365, 656, and 800 in March 2019).

What new planes? There are no new aircraft in strategic aviation. Only modernization of old Tu-95MS and Tu-160. The Tu-160M2 will only be new in a few years.

Su-57 is a tactical plane not strategic. He means Tu-160M2. At this time, the US, which is reportedly backward compared to Russia, will introduce B-21...The US in tactical and strategic aviation, in nuclear submarines, the surface fleet is ahead of Russia both in numbers and technologically.

uses old missiles for its strategic forces. Borei is newer than ohio. B21 is meant to use bombs while tu-160 uses 2000+km range kh-101 missiles. Bulava, topol-M, Yars ... are newer than any other missile in the world. They are also introducing hypersonic missiles and gliders. The b-21 need to fly above s-400 before launching its bombs. wrote:

This old strategic missile enough to destroy Russia. What is the advantage of Yars over Minuteman III? What is the advantage of Bulava over Trident II. Trident II has much more firepower than small Bullava. There are only 4submarine in Borey. The rest are old Delta IV. The US is working on a brand new SSBN that will be better than Borey. Where is the mythical advantage of Russian nuclear forces over the US? Russia is not able to defend itself against American missiles. They are still effective and very deadly.

Throw weight MM III  is 1.3 tons, throw weight Yars is 1.3 tons. Throw weight Trident is 2.8 tons, throw weight Bulava is 1.2 ton . American missiles carry the same amount of decoys and Tridents much more than Bulava. In addition, Trident also flattens a trajectory. Trident is better than Bulava, although older.

The S-500 will not stop a massive nuclear attack. In addition, his options against ICBM and SLBM are highly debatable. Even much better SM III have limited options against ICBM. Only GBI and here against a fairly limited nuclear attack.  Russia is defenseless against Trident with many decoys and MM III...

The Russian arsenal is newer but it does not mean technologically better. Yars is level MMIII and Bulava is weaker compared to Trident II. There is no mythical technological advantage over the US.

Of course, no arguments only insults at my address. Congratulations on personal culture...
Trident II has a better range and better throw weight than Bulava. It can carry more powerful MIRV as well as missile defense systems penetrator.Yars weighs 50 tons and has a thor weight like MM III from the 70s. MM III weighs 36tons. It means it has more efficient fuel etc.Where is the mythical advantage of Russian strategic missiles?

Arrow wrote:Throw weight MM III  is 1.3 tons, throw weight Yars is 1.3 tons. Throw weight Trident is 2.8 tons, throw weight Bulava is 1.2 ton . American missiles carry the same amount of decoys and Tridents much more than Bulava. In addition, Trident also flattens a trajectory. Trident is better than Bulava, although older.

The S-500 will not stop a massive nuclear attack. In addition, his options against ICBM and SLBM are highly debatable. Even much better SM III have limited options against ICBM. Only GBI and here against a fairly limited nuclear attack.  Russia is defenseless against Trident with many decoys and MM III...

The Russian arsenal is newer but it does not mean technologically better. Yars is level MMIII and Bulava is weaker compared to Trident II. There is no mythical technological advantage over the US.

Yars is the level of Minuteman III. Okay.

What is the Satan then? This rocket alone is far more advanced and powerful than anything the US has its arsenal.
Yet for Russia it's already obsolete.

Trident II weighs 59 tons. Bulava 37 tons.

Hole wrote:Trident II weighs 59 tons. Bulava 37 tons.

US solid rocket fuel tech used in the Trident II has not improved since it was first deployed (1990). Russian solid rocket fuel has
advanced at least a factor of two in energy density for the same mass of fuel. That easily explains the difference since
the US solid rocket fuel was better than what as available to the USSR during the 1980s.

Arrow wrote:Throw weight MM III  is 1.3 tons, throw weight Yars is 1.3 tons. Throw weight Trident is 2.8 tons, throw weight Bulava is 1.2 ton . American missiles carry the same amount of decoys and Tridents much more than Bulava. In addition, Trident also flattens a trajectory. Trident is better than Bulava, although older.

The S-500 will not stop a massive nuclear attack. In addition, his options against ICBM and SLBM are highly debatable. Even much better SM III have limited options against ICBM. Only GBI and here against a fairly limited nuclear attack.  Russia is defenseless against Trident with many decoys and MM III...

The Russian arsenal is newer but it does not mean technologically better. Yars is level MMIII and Bulava is weaker compared to Trident II. There is no mythical technological advantage over the US.

Before you write something like this...please get better information.

The CEP of Bulawa and Trident II reentry vehicle are nearly same. Trident II in it's heavy form weighs 22 tons more for only 2000 km more range. The latest Trident missile is 2 m longer. Better weight to distance ratio is clear for Bulawa. The number of MIRV is fixed with START treaty, Bulawa and Trident could both carry more, but are not allowed to.

Yars is a MOBILE system, the Minuteman 3 is stationary in silos. Yars has a longer range, better accuracy, more MIRV, but weighs more that's true.

Why you compare S-500 with SM-3????? The ABM System is not primary S-500 it is A-135 and A-235. Older A-35 and actual A-135 use a 5 kt nuclear warhead to destroy incoming reentry vehicle. USA trust a kinetic kill vehicle to destroy the reentry vehicle. If I would bet my money...I would put everything on the 5 kt nuclear warhead. The A-235 is developing right now. The S-500 has the ability to destroy reentry vehicle in the middle to terminal phase, but only with the biggest missile! By the way...EVERY AD system has the ability to destroy incoming reentry vehicle, the S-400 can and the S-300 too, but the perfomance would not be overwhelming. The S-500 has no analouge in the world at moment...it has the ability to shoot everything out of the sky, from drone to ICBM, that's true and maybe that hurts.