Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Share
    avatar
    Isos
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 479
    Points : 483
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Isos on Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:45 pm

    https://issuu.com/openbriefing/docs/tridentcommbrief1

    Trident commission in UK analyses nuclear capabilities of each country. Tell many umbers like active warheads, strategic and tactical number of warheads...
    avatar
    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7301
    Points : 7611
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Aug 06, 2016 9:28 am

    It is always talked about ICBM's, but what about Russia's tactical nuclear arsenal? Do we have any figures regarding how many warheads they use and what exact missiles are currently in service?
    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9943
    Points : 10433
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  George1 on Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:25 am

    New START September 2016 numbers

    The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START numbers from the 1 September 2016 data exchange. Russia declared 1796 deployed warheads, 508 deployed launchers, and 847 total launchers. In March 2016 the numbers were 1735, 521, and 856 respectively.

    The U.S. numbers in September 2016 were 1367 warheads, 681 deployed and 848 total launchers (1481, 741, and 878 in March 2016).

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2016/10/new_start_september_2016_numbe.shtml


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    eehnie
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 872
    Points : 897
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  eehnie on Thu Feb 16, 2017 3:02 pm

    http://russianforces.org/current/

    Current status

    In January 2016 Russia was estimated to have 525 strategic launchers and about 1800 nuclear warheads. In its September 2015 New START data exchange Russia reported 526 deployed launchers with 1648 New START-accountable nuclear warheads.

    The Strategic Rocket Forces were estimated to have 299 operational missile systems that include missiles that can carry 902 warheads. These include 46 R-36M2 (SS-18) missiles, 30 UR-100NUTTH (SS-19) missiles, 72 road-mobile Topol (SS-25) systems, 60 silo-based and 18 road-mobile Topol-M (SS-27) systems, and 73 RS-24 missiles [SS-29]].

    [Strategic Rocket Forces...]

    The Russian strategic fleet includes 10 operational strategic missile submarines with SLBMs, whose missiles can carry 160 missiles with 704 nuclear warheads. Five operational Project 667BDRM submarines are based in the Northern Fleet. These submarines carry 80 R-29RM (SS-N-23) launchers. One Project 955 submarine with 16 Bulava SLBMs on board is also based in the Northern Fleet. The only remaining Pacific Fleet base hosts two 667BDR (Delta III) submarines, which carry 36 R-29R (SS-N-18) missiles and two Project 955 submarines with 32 Bulava SLBMs.

    [Strategic fleet...]

    The Russian strategic aviation consists of 66 bombers that carry an estimated 200 long-range cruise missiles and bombs. The bombers are 11 Tu-160 (Blackjack) and 55 Tu-95MS (Bear H). The bombers can carry various modifications of the Kh-55 (AS-15) and Kh-101 cruise missiles and gravity bombs.

    [Strategic aviation...]

    In November 2015 Russia launched the first satellite of the new-generation early-warning system, EKS. The satellite is currently undergoing tests.

    [Early warning and defense...]

    [January 12, 2016]

    I would expect Russia move their silo-bassed SS-27 to mobile platforms.

    Also I would expect Russia to include armoured cabins for all their mobile platforms. It would help in the scorting and it would mean an important modernization, increasing by the right way the modernization rates on strategic forces.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15964
    Points : 16665
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:17 am

    Silos are expensive but generally require a direct hit to defeat.

    Once you have built them they are a rather effective and secure way of having ready to launch missiles.

    A few batteries of SAMs nearby can be used to defend from conventional or first strike attack so they are pretty safe too... they should be able to launch the missiles before any successful attack can take them out.


    _________________
    “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

    eridan
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 136
    Points : 144
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  eridan on Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:54 pm

    Is there an alternative source to numbers of Russian nuclear arsenal, other than FAS or new START treaty numbers?

    More precisely, is there a source mentioning number of non-deployed ICBM and SLBM, as well as number of non-deployed warheads FOR ICBM and SLBM?

    avatar
    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2085
    Points : 2125
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:03 pm

    eridan wrote:Is there an alternative source to numbers of Russian nuclear arsenal, other than FAS or new START treaty numbers?

    More precisely, is there a source mentioning number of non-deployed ICBM and SLBM, as well as number of non-deployed warheads FOR ICBM and SLBM?


    Are you talking about these numbers?


    New START September 2016 numbers

    The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START numbers from the 1 September 2016 data exchange. Russia declared 1796 deployed warheads, 508 deployed launchers, and 847 total launchers. In March 2016 the numbers were 1735, 521, and 856 respectively.

    The U.S. numbers in September 2016 were 1367 warheads, 681 deployed and 848 total launchers (1481, 741, and 878 in March 2016).


    eridan
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 136
    Points : 144
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  eridan on Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:49 pm

    I am talking about source different from new START treaty. As one can see, those numbers are for deployed missiles and warheads only. FAS does offer some idea about non deployed warheads, but with inadequate detail, as one can't deduce number of ballistic missile warheads from other strategic warheads (warheads to be deployed via strategic bombers).

    Furthermore, there is no info on number of non-active icbm/slbm. Surely there must be some that are stored someplace, even if not used for some years now.
    avatar
    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2085
    Points : 2125
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:32 pm

    FAS does offer some idea about non deployed warheads, but with inadequate detail, as one can't deduce number of ballistic missile warheads from other strategic warheads (warheads to be deployed via strategic bombers).
    I don't know of any and the FAS is pretty much the only group offering detailed estimates. That treaty nor any other doesn't requires the total number of nuclear warheads to be released and the countries involved don't seem to be interested in sharing.  

    Furthermore, there is no info on number of non-active icbm/slbm. Surely there must be some that are stored someplace, even if not used for some years now.
    That information is released with the Start figures in the "508 deployed launchers, and 847 total launchers".

    NOTES:
    - For the purpose of the START treaty, an active strategic bomber counts as one deployed launcher and one deployed warhead. One in reserve would count as one total launcher and 0 deployed warheads.
    - Apparently another particularity is the SS19 has to be kept unfueled and unarmed due to the volatility of it's fuel. So they would be counted in with the total launchers but not deployed launchers and with 0 deployed warheads. Or so I have read.
    - Another rumor which may have some credibility is that a mobile Yars may carry only 3 warheads as opposed to the silo Yars carrying 4 warheads.

    eridan
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 136
    Points : 144
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  eridan on Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:31 am

    Thanks for pointing out the 847 total launchers. Somehow i forgot about that figure. But on second thought, 847 minus 508 deployed launchers should mean 340 more are in storage of some sort.

    Question remains whether bombers are included in the 508 figure. Logic would suggest yes, due to definition of new START treaty and how it handles bombers. So, 508 deployed minus 70 or so bombers would mean around 440 deployed icbm and slbm.

    Now, START doesn't go into details on those but FAS does guesstimate their numbers. Their figures don't mesh with START though. They say 316 ICBM and 176 SLBM (alongside 68 bombers). That's 482 without bombers or 550 with bombers.

    Since FAS does only guesstimate though, and for some reason they guesstimated the number of deployed slbm simply as number of total subs times number of missiles per sub. That's almost certainly not a good guesstimate, as all other slbm users have less missiles than total number of sub silos due to fact that it's impossible to have all ssbn operational at once.

    So it does seem plausible to me that deployed slbm number is less than 176. If 508 total figure is used, then 316 icbm and 68 bombers would yield some 124 slbm deployed. Which seems like a reasonable figure, little over two thirds of total fleet potential.

    And then, out of remaining undeployed 340 or so launcher missiles, great majority (almost 300?) should then be old ICBMs.
    avatar
    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2085
    Points : 2125
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:23 am

    This is the Russian site if you are not familiar. His numbers don't jive either but explains his breakdown.

    http://russianforces.org/

    IMO the active bomber total is high, probably no more then 50 or so.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15964
    Points : 16665
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:10 am

    - Apparently another particularity is the SS19 has to be kept unfueled and unarmed due to the volatility of it's fuel. So they would be counted in with the total launchers but not deployed launchers and with 0 deployed warheads.

    Where did this silly information come from?

    The stilletto has a storage period of something like 20 odd years... are you trying to suggest they kept them with no fuel and no warhead on board and fuelled and armed them before launch...

    How could they even do that in a missile launch silo?

    The only Russian missiles I know of that require fuelling before use are the Kh-22M anti ship missiles, and space launch vehicles with cryogenic fuels that cannot be stored in the missile.

    Amusing for you to suggest that a missile in service at one time in the hundreds would need to be fuelled and armed before it could be launched... that is just crazy... only the first Soviet ICBMs had that problem with their cryogenic components like the R-7.


    _________________
    “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
    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2085
    Points : 2125
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:22 am

    GarryB wrote:
    - Apparently another particularity is the SS19 has to be kept unfueled and unarmed due to the volatility of it's fuel. So they would be counted in with the total launchers but not deployed launchers and with 0 deployed warheads.

    Where did this silly information come from?

    The stilletto has a storage period of something like 20 odd years... are you trying to suggest they kept them with no fuel and no warhead on board and fuelled and armed them before launch...

    How could they even do that in a missile launch silo?

    The only Russian missiles I know of that require fuelling before use are the Kh-22M anti ship missiles, and space launch vehicles with cryogenic fuels that cannot be stored in the missile.

    Amusing for you to suggest that a missile in service at one time in the hundreds would need to be fuelled and armed before it could be launched... that is just crazy... only the first Soviet ICBMs had that problem with their cryogenic components like the R-7.

    Bro, I just report it. Don't make it up!

    eridan
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 136
    Points : 144
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  eridan on Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:54 pm

    Thanks for the link, Franco!

    Just to be sure, current active SSBN force features 3 Boreys (It used to be spelled Borei when romanized. What happened?), 6 Delta IVs and 3 Delta III?

    As for fueling missiles like Stiletto, as far as I know *ALL* liquid fueled ICBM are normally kept inside silos without fuel. They get fueled only for exercise and when there's perception of immediate threat. Once fueled, that fuel degrades over time so they can't be held in such a prepared mode for long. AFAIK, initially in the cold war that used to be just days, but by the end of cold war liquid fueled missiles could be kept fueled inside silos for a few weeks and still perform within allowable limits.
    avatar
    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2085
    Points : 2125
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Sun Mar 12, 2017 2:26 pm

    Active would be 3 Borei, 5 Delta IV's and 2 Delta III's. One each Delta III and IV are in refit (dry dock) plus the Typhoon (used as a test vessel) could be rearmed, so those would count against the total launchers.
    avatar
    Isos
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 479
    Points : 483
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Isos on Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:00 pm

    franco wrote:Active would be 3 Borei, 5 Delta IV's and 2 Delta III's. One each Delta III and IV are in refit (dry dock) plus the Typhoon (used as a test vessel) could be rearmed, so those would count against the total launchers.

    The last Typhoon was used for the testing of bulava. Now they have Boreis for operting and testing this missile. Si it is no more in service and will probably finish like the others ? Moreover, its crew is probably the best of the russian navy, they will be send on the next Borei-M and wont train another for operatin the typhoon.
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3000
    Points : 3034
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  max steel on Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:35 pm

    franco wrote:

    Bro, I just report it. Don't make it up!



    Don't take Pavel Podvig words seriously.
    avatar
    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2085
    Points : 2125
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:57 pm

    max steel wrote:
    franco wrote:

    Bro, I just report it. Don't make it up!



    Don't take Pavel Podvig words seriously.

    I have also seen it from other sources too. Sometimes it is unfueled but armed, sometimes fueled but unarmed. Sometimes unfueled and unarmed. So I actually don't know, but am suspicious that they are both fueled and armed after all that. And back to my original statement, I used the "apparently" due to this. Very Happy
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15964
    Points : 16665
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:04 am

    Well that is just bollocks.

    They are called storable liquid fuels for a reason.

    More importantly if they can't be stored inside the rockets where do they store the fuel and why can they store the fuel long term outside the missiles and not inside the missiles?

    More importantly bus motors are all liquid fuelled so they can be turned on and off and throttled when needed... so even solid fuelled missiles will have at least one liquid stage... these are usually sealed units on most ICBMs that have them... so why can Bus stage liquid propellent motors store liquid fuels and other liquid propellent motors need to be fuelled at the last moment.

    More importantly of the 4-5 personnel controlling an ICBM silo field... which one puts warheads on each missile and which one pumps the fuel and how many days do you think that would take to prepare an SS-19 field for launch.

    The R-7 took 24 hours to prepare for launch but that was because it used cryogenic components and at the time 24 hours was plenty of time to get revenge...

    Missiles developed since then are rather faster.

    Anyway... to quote Sean (SOC):

    In order to overcome the weaknesses of the R-7, namely the limited alert time and the poor survivability of a weapon exposed on a fixed launch pad, the Soviet Union began to explore both storable fuels and silo basing. In 1956 Yangel was given the order to begin design work on an ICBM using storable liquid fuel.

    From: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-RVSN-Analysis.html

    Or here:
    The most common hypergolic fuels, hydrazine, monomethylhydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, and oxidizer, nitrogen tetroxide, are all liquid at ordinary temperatures and pressures. They are therefore sometimes called storable liquid propellants. They are suitable for use in spacecraft missions lasting many years. The cryogenity of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen limits their practical use to space launch vehicles where they need to be stored only briefly.

    Can be stored for years...


    _________________
    “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
    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2085
    Points : 2125
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:20 pm

    I'm not sure what one should use as a rebuttal to bollocks considering I had to look it up. And what exactly trumps a bollocks? Just because I'm curious. confused
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15964
    Points : 16665
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:41 pm

    Very simply an SLBM attack on Soviet ICBM fields would have given them approximately 5 minutes to launch... which includes time to actually make the decision to launch a full retaliation strike, or in the case of an error to do nothing... there would be no time to mount warheads or pump fuel into missiles...

    Stilleto was considered one of their best missiles are you trying to say it was useless?

    That is why I am suggesting your information is bollocks... or if you prefer... bullshit.


    _________________
    “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
    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2085
    Points : 2125
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  franco on Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:19 am

    Very Happy

    I actually don't know, just reporting what I have read. If I had read it from just from one source, wouldn't have thought twice about it but now am suspicious. I do agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a system that cannot be put into use in a very short time.

    By the way, the correct answer to what trumps a bollock.... is a Donald Rolling Eyes


    Yeah I know, don't give up my day job Laughing

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Strategic Nuclear Warheads: Numbers

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:26 pm