Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans

[bobbymike]

https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/russia-to-get-new-fifth-generation-nuclear-attacks-sub-in-2030s/

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/forget-north-korea-russia-now-building-emp-weapons-23760

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2017/12/20/report-congress-russian-compliance-intermediate-range-nuclear-forces-inf-treaty

 

[bobbymike]

https://special-ops.org/news/technology/known-russias-5th-gen-husky-class-stealth-subs/

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17197/russia-fires-topol-ballistic-missile-to-test-new-tech-to-defeat-missile-defense-systems

This isn’t the first test of a modified Topol in 2017, either. In September 2017, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced it had fired an RS-12M with an unspecified “advanced combat payload,” which may have been a hypersonic boost glide vehicle.

There have been reports that Sarmat may be able to carry two dozen Object 4202 hypersonic vehicles and suggestions that it is a direct response to America's pursuit of a prompt global strike capability.

 

[bobbymike]

http://defense-update.com/20171231_sarmat.html

http://defense-update.com/20171231_russian_strategic_modernization.html

The impressive progress of Russian nuclear forces is the topic of this article. Russia is modernizing all three ‘legs’ of its nuclear triad. This modernization includes the introduction of new strategic missile submarines armed with new RSM56 Bulava missiles, restarting the production line of strategic bombers – the old-new Tupolev Tu-160M2, to be equipped with air-launched derivatives of the Kaliber naval cruise missiles. This modernization also includes a complete replacement of the Russian land-based strategic missile fleet, with the development and deployment of hundreds of new Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM). Accelerated testing of these new strategic missiles highlights the importance and fast pace of this thrust, as Moscow transforms its strategic force to better cope with the U.S. evolving missile defense capabilities.

But remember the US, who has barely started its' modernization program, is at fault for causing 'this arms race'

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.c4isrnet.com/space/2018/01/12/russias-nuclear-underwater-drone-is-real-and-in-the-nuclear-posture-review/

 

[sferrin]

https://www.c4isrnet.com/space/2018/01/12/russias-nuclear-underwater-drone-is-real-and-in-the-nuclear-posture-review/

"WASHINGTON — A draft of the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review confirms the existence of an underwater nuclear drone made and operated by Russia, a capability the U.S. Defense Department had not previously publicly acknowledged.

“In addition to modernizing ‘legacy’ Soviet nuclear systems, Russia is developing and deploying new nuclear warheads and launchers,” stated an unclassified draft of the nuclear posture review first published by the Huffington Post.

“These efforts include multiple upgrades for every leg of the Russian nuclear triad of strategic bombers, sea-based missiles and land-based missiles. Russia is also developing at least two new intercontinental range systems, a hypersonic glide vehicle and a new intercontinental, nuclear-armed undersea autonomous torpedo.”"

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/01/25/russia-inks-deal-for-10-modernized-strategic-bombers/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow

 

[bobbymike]

https://cgsr.llnl.gov/content/assets/docs/Precision-Strike-Capabilities-report-v3-7.pdf

 

[bobbymike]

http://defense-update.com/20180302_new_russian_strategic_weapons.html

Nuclear Propulsion Helps Avoid Enemy Defenses: According to Putin, Russian scientists have succeeded to miniaturize a nuclear propulsion system that offers power to weight ratio 100 times better than current propulsion systems. This reactor can be fitted into cruise missiles and autonomous underwater weapons, enabling such compact platforms to be used as strategic weapons, and attack anywhere on the face of the earth. Putin confirmed the nuclear propulsion was successfully tested last year and demonstrated the capability to generate the propulsion required for the launch and cruise phases of such weapons.

Nuclear propulsion means that the PRO – a future cruise missile designed to use this system could operate at ranges 12 times larger than the range achieved by conventionally powered weapons. Maintaining a low-level flight profile, but not limited by range, such a moderately stealthy missile will be able to circumvent air defenses and use unexpected attack profiles unfeasible with conventional weapons.

U.S. sources confirmed the Russians have tested a nuclear-powered cruise missile but indicated such a test failed over the Arctic, but no radioactive traces were reported by European pollution monitoring. Neither the nuclear-powered cruise missile nor the torpedo was mentioned in the recently released U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).

 

[flateric]

Guys at the site apparently have serious translation problems.

 

[bobbymike]

Guys at the site apparently have serious translation problems.

I had to correct "Putin" spelled with two t's ;D

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2018/March%202018/US-Not-Surprised-By-Russias-Claim-to-Have-New-Invincible-Nuclear-Weapon.aspx?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=

Russian President Vladimir Putin says Russia has developed a new cruise missile that is capable of carrying a nuclear weapon and has “practically unlimited range,” an “unpredictable flight path,” and is “invincible" against current and future air and missile defense systems, according to a video with translated subtitles posted by the BBC.

When asked about Russia’s claims during a Thursday press briefing, Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White repeatedly said the Defense Department was “not surprised by the statement.” She declined to elaborate but said, “the American people should rest assured that we are fully prepared.”

 

[Flyaway]

Anatoly Zak analyses the Sarmat ICBM.

The development of the Sarmat missile reportedly started between 2009 and 2011 and coincided with the deterioration of Russia's relations with the West. The decision to build the "new-generation Satan" was not without controversy, because large liquid-propellant missiles were long considered obsolete. For example, the United States long abandoned liquid propellant in its strategic arsenal in favor of compact solid-propellant missiles.

The Sarmat program also encountered various problems with the rocket itself and with its manufacturing base, which apparently delayed its introduction into the armaments years behind the originally planned date of 2016. First throw tests in Plesetsk, which only saw the ejection of a dummy missile from its silo, took place around December 2017, or at least a year later than publicly promised. Around the same time, the first launch of the flight worthy missile was promised before the end of 2018.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sarmat.html

This leads me to ask why is this liquid propelled rather than solid?

 

[fredymac]

Last minute of video shows the Russian HGV and what appears to be a laser weapon system although it doesn't show enough to be sure. The rotating structure might be a beam projector but again, not enough details to be certain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxG7m9qKKs4

 

[kcran567]

Seems impressive but will it all work? Is this all indigenous R&D or is there any indication any of those 3 systems such as the nuclear powered cruise missile, hypersonic maneuver warhead, and the laser were based on other projects in the West that didn't go anywhere?

 

[sferrin]

Seems impressive but will it all work?

Why wouldn't it? There's nothing here that hasn't been done before.

Is this all indigenous R&D or is there any indication any of those 3 systems such as the nuclear powered cruise missile, hypersonic maneuver warhead, and the laser were based on other projects in the West that didn't go anywhere?

They've had numerous independant projects for these over the years. Russia isn't China.

 

[Airplane]

As far back as the 1980s with the success of GPS, the follow-on plan was to place space based radar to see anyplace in the world. Its probably time to bring that back to the forefront of being a "must have" system. We could track mobile ICBM launchers from satellites in geosynchronous orbit over the USSR... er, I mean Russia, and target them with B-21s or hypersonic weapons launched from the hypersonic son-of-blackbird in development. We could track their bombers as soon as they start moving around the tarmac even before getting airborne and coming within range of ground based radar sites in friendly turf. There has been a lot of work on space based radar and a system could be fielded relatively quickly and for not a lot of money....

 

[sferrin]

As far back as the 1980s with the success of GPS, the follow-on plan was to place space based radar to see anyplace in the world. Its probably time to bring that back to the forefront of being a "must have" system. We could track mobile ICBM launchers from satellites in geosynchronous orbit over the USSR... er, I mean Russia, and target them with B-21s or hypersonic weapons launched from the hypersonic son-of-blackbird in development.

Correction: you could target empty TELs.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It seems the 'air launched hypersonic weapon' is simply an Iskander-M mounted on a MiG-31.

 

[litzj]

Interesting video.

How to solve communication problem with HGV??

ionized air interrupt communication of HGV

 

[sferrin]

It seems the 'air launched hypersonic weapon' is simply an Iskander-M mounted on a MiG-31.

Is that verified or an educated guess from the video?

 

[totoro]

While the general shape and size is similar, I would say Kinzhal has a more tapered front section and a more pointed nose. While the main booster section may be based on Iskander, it seems likely at least the frontal section is different.

 

[bring_it_on]

It does appear to be highly influenced if not a modification of that Ballistic Missile. Quite different from what DARPA and the USAF are trying with the TBG and ARRW. Also, there seems to be some ambiguity when it comes to the 2000 km range cited being that of the weapon or that of the combined combat range of the weapon and launch system (MiG-31).

 

[stealthflanker]

This leads me to ask why is this liquid propelled rather than solid?

So that you can use it as Space booster when it decommissioned.

 

[Avimimus]

It does appear to be highly influenced if not a modification of that Ballistic Missile. Quite different from what DARPA and the USAF are trying with the TBG and ARRW. Also, there seems to be some ambiguity when it comes to the 2000 km range cited being that of the weapon or that of the combined combat range of the weapon and launch system (MiG-31).

I assumed it was the kinetic range of the missile. But it could be the operational range (I wonder how much endurance the Mig-31 would lose with that payload)!?

The Iskander-M has a fairly low and flat trajectory, correct? Plus terminal homing? So it is a good candidate for a technological starting point. That said, I don't think it would be a trivial task, and an air launched version would be quite different.

The 3d graphics were quite low quality or unreliable (e.g. the Kanyon/Status-6 system being combined with the AUV)... however, if we take them at face value they showed the Kinzhal releasing a pair of manoeuvring terminal anti-ship warheads. Correct me if I'm wrong - but that is new.

 

[Avimimus]

Picture found on Reddit:

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

When there were proposals some years ago (2004-2005) for a satellite launcher based on MiG-31 (Ishim) one option proposed for quick development was to adapt an Iskander missile.

In 2013 there was a story on nvo.ng.ru that mooted the possibility of mounting an IRBM such as Iskander on the MiG-31 which specifically mentioned the Ishim studies:

Considering studies on the Ishim complex, it is possible to use the modernized MiG-31 as a delivery vehicle of an IRBM with a launch weight up to 10 tonnes. The missile complex with IRBM will have a high level of survivability in view of the aircraft’s high speed of departing from the airfield on receiving a missile attack warning signal. The MiG-31 fighter equipped with an IRBM will not meet a single one of the criteria of a heavy bomber, and accordingly the quantitative limitations of the START Treaty in force will not extend to this aircraft and to the ballistic missiles and their warheads accommodated on it. The missile complex with air-launched IRBM can be employed to perform the nuclear deterrence mission on the European, Eastern, and Southern strategic axes without the air platform leaving Russian airspace. Due to the air platform’s flight range, such a complex can exercise nuclear deterrence on several strategic axes simultaneously. Missile complexes with ground-based IRBMs do not have such capabilities. The air-launched IRBM can be standardized with missiles intended for operational insertion of satellites and for satellite intercept. One option permitting a cost reduction and decreased time periods for development of the intermediate-range missile complex is to create a ballistic missile using elements of the existing Iskander-M operational-tactical ballistic missile.

https://fortunascorner.com/2013/09/16/russian-options-for-upgrading-strategic-nuclear-forces/

On top of this, it looks a lot like, and is basically the same size as, the Iskander-M.

I'm fairly confident Khinzal is derived from the Iskander-M.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

These announcements are mostly just Maskirovka. Its like the Cold War all over again. Hyping up test systems, trying to give the impression of Russia being strong, yet they can't even afford a decent 3D artist.... I'd be embarrassed to show those sequences personally.

 

[Avimimus]

They might be angling towards trying to get us (NATO) to back away from ABM and from hypersonic weapons. This would provide some protection to Iran etc.

If so they might develop a credible capacity rather than actually deploying one. We'll see.

From a Russian perspective the air-launched Iskander looks very sensible:

1) It seems relatively low cost (existing launch platform and seems to be based on Iskander)
2) Adds a multi-role capability to the Mig-31
3) Enhances the long range precision strike capability the Russians have been building out with the Tu-22M upgrades, Tu-160 production restart, Iskander, Kaliber and Kh-101 deployment and Su-34 production
4) They clearly get space warfare in a way the Europeans don't and this seems to enhance their ASAT capability too

Ah, but they are modifying Mig-31BMs to a strategic role and away from their role as tactical bombers and interceptors (already multi-role).

 

[sferrin]

They might be angling towards trying to get us (NATO) to back away from ABM and from hypersonic weapons.

I can't think of a single reason we'd want to do that.

 

[Avimimus]

The usually hawkish RAND seems to think it is a good idea to reach some kind of agreement on non-proliferation of hypersonic technology - maybe you should talk to them.

 

[sferrin]

The usually hawkish RAND seems to think it is a good idea to reach some kind of agreement on non-proliferation of hypersonic technology - maybe you should talk to them.

I note you didn't include "ABM" in there. As for hypersonics why would either China or Russia agree to give them up when we don't have any? Oh, you want to trade ABMs for hypersonics? Brilliant. Let's leave ourselves helpless to the likes of NK and Iran.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russia-building-nuclear-powered-cruise-missiles-the-24744

Part of the reason the Kremlin is pursuing these new weapons—apart from genuine concern about American missile defenses—is the Russian military industrial complex, which is perpetually in search of new projects. In the case of these weapons, the Russian defense and nuclear energy industries played a large role in convincing the Kremlin to proceed—and by some estimates, Russian industry might have had the dominant role.

Keeping capacity alive. Not letting top talent die out,” Kofman told The National Interest. “That means the feeding defense industry and S&T [science and technology]. Even if you don’t really have missions.”

 

[tomcat1974]

These announcements are mostly just Maskirovka. Its like the Cold War all over again. Hyping up test systems, trying to give the impression of Russia being strong, yet they can't even afford a decent 3D artist.... I'd be embarrassed to show those sequences personally.

Come one ... Masha and the Bear had very nice animation.

 

[tomcat1974]

I can't think of a single reason we'd want to do that.

It's a matter of debate ... We could see a real proliferation of Aegis system. De facto missile/defence system on the Navy... Good luck finding which one has the SM3 /SM 6 missiles on them.

 

[Rickshaw]

The usually hawkish RAND seems to think it is a good idea to reach some kind of agreement on non-proliferation of hypersonic technology - maybe you should talk to them.

I note you didn't include "ABM" in there. As for hypersonics why would either China or Russia agree to give them up when we don't have any? Oh, you want to trade ABMs for hypersonics? Brilliant. Let's leave ourselves helpless to the likes of NK and Iran.

Assuming that Iran and the DPRK are actually a real threat and not just a fantasy of imagination.

Just like the Russians in fact.

Why is everybody a threat to the US, I wonder? Could it be because the US is threatening everybody else? Mmmmm....

 

[fredymac]

Assuming that Iran and the DPRK are actually a real threat and not just a fantasy of imagination.

Just like the Russians in fact.

Why is everybody a threat to the US, I wonder? Could it be because the US is threatening everybody else? Mmmmm....

Who is everybody? North Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Russia, and China do not constitute “everybody”. Britain or France with nukes is not a threat. North Korea with nukes is. The reason is in the nature and behavior of its’ government and not because the US is planning to annex it or even impose a regime change. If North Korea would focus on feeding itself, the world could safely ignore it.

 

[sferrin]

The usually hawkish RAND seems to think it is a good idea to reach some kind of agreement on non-proliferation of hypersonic technology - maybe you should talk to them.

I note you didn't include "ABM" in there. As for hypersonics why would either China or Russia agree to give them up when we don't have any? Oh, you want to trade ABMs for hypersonics? Brilliant. Let's leave ourselves helpless to the likes of NK and Iran.

Assuming that Iran and the DPRK are actually a real threat and not just a fantasy of imagination.

Just like the Russians in fact.

Why is everybody a threat to the US, I wonder? Could it be because the US is threatening everybody else? Mmmmm....

Sure. That's why the US unilaterally drew down so many nuclear weapons and didn't modernize while Russia, China, India and North Korea are going like gang busters. That's why Russia and North Korea have both threatened to nuke the US - because we're the bad guys. :

 

[Avimimus]

Sferrin - to defeat an opponent one must empathise with them (even if one doesn't sympathise with them).

During most of the Cold War the United States maintained a larger nuclear arsenal than Russia and pursued destabilising technologies (e.g. stealth). The United States is pursuing hypersonics, space based weapons, and pulling out of disarmament treaties.

The United States has repeatedly threatened to attack North Korea and Iran. The United States has discussed developing tactical nuclear bunker-busters for use against non-nuclear powers. The United States has repeatedly discussed regime change in these countries (and even Russia), and engaged in a technically illegal war to overthrow the government of Iraq. In the post-Cold War world, the United States has backed opposition groups in the Ukraine and Georgia, and NATO has gradually expanded.

Now if you were a paranoid dictator, how would you feel? Would you feel like a deranged blackmailer, or someone standing up to a bully to demand international law be followed? We are all heroes of our own stories.

 

[sferrin]

Sferrin - to defeat an opponent one must empathise with them (even if one doesn't sympathise with them).

During most of the Cold War the United States maintained a larger nuclear arsenal than Russia and pursued destabilising technologies (e.g. stealth).

You might want to recheck your facts as the opposite was the case for the majority of the Cold War. The USSR had much larger nuclear forces and pursued "destabilizing technologies", such as ABMs (they had the only operational site) and mobile ICBMs.

The United States is pursuing hypersonics, space based weapons, and pulling out of disarmament treaties.

Both Russia and China are further ahead in hypersonics so I don't know how the fact that the US is pursuing them as well is supposed to make us the bad guy. Russia is not a member of the ABM Treaty anymore either. There is no evidence the US is pursuing space based weapons.

The United States has repeatedly threatened to attack North Korea and Iran.

How many times have both of those countries threatened to destroy the US? NK has recently threatened to nuke the US, as has both Russia, "escalate to deescalate", and China. We have not threatened to nuke them. (Well, not until they threatened to nuke us anyway.)

The United States has discussed developing tactical nuclear bunker-busters for use against non-nuclear powers.

We've actually had them in the past. We do not now. That we developed the MOP demonstrates we'd rather not use nukes.

The United States has repeatedly discussed regime change in these countries (and even Russia), and engaged in a technically illegal war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

*cough* Georgia, Crimea, East Ukraine, etc. You'll note we did not annex Iraq, nor was it "illegal".

In the post-Cold War world, the United States has backed opposition groups in the Ukraine and Georgia,

Just as Russia and China have backed opposition groups in the US.

and NATO has gradually expanded.

By invitation, not conquest (unlike Russia).

Now if you were a paranoid dictator, how would you feel? Would you feel like a deranged blackmailer, or someone standing up to a bully to demand international law be followed? We are all heroes of our own stories.

Are you seriously putting North Korea on the same level, morally, as the US?