Russian Nuclear Weapons Industry

Viktor wrote:Can you explain this part? Only altitude and trajectory?

To change altitude you again need some kind of engine, dont you if you dont want to loose its speed?

To generally explain the concept when the RV enters the atmosphere it has enough energy as it reenters the earth at Mach 22-24 , one can boost glide the RV for couple of 100 Km and can use control surfaces to change altitude and direction( i.e trajectory )without loosing much speed in trade off though it would still loose some but which makes ABM interception very difficult due to exterme thermal stress and speed that RV generates which is more in excess of 100 G ..... not to mention that RV is itself a small RCS target.

So basicly what RS-24 RV needs is Guidance and Control surfaces and does not need engine to change altitude and trajectory when it is in high atmosphere which is very easily possible but i understand RS-24 RV is far more advanced than what I have generically described above of how MaRV/BGRV type vehical work and no one will ever tell you how such advanced MaRV works its a highly classified subject.

In this book Lightning Rod William Yengest has described Topol-M RV has have some kind of Ramjet propulsion that when the RV enters atmosphere can propel Topol-M RV at greater than Mach 5 changing direction and can do a Low Level Run In at the Target defeating low level ABM interceptor.

Austin wrote:They can also independently target from each other at great distance.

This really needs Breakthrough in Materials , Guidance & Propulsion , Warhead Design and many other classified subjects , Like Solmonov said its Science Fiction becoming Reality

It would be interesting to know:

1. How guidance is managed
2. What type of engine does it use
3. Based on what does it starts to change trajectory [/quote]

If i had asked the same question , Yuri Solmonov would say Nice Question Son but its a classified subject

But I can tell you India is working on similar concept for its Advanced Agni 5 and the way India would do is to develop each smaller RV with its own guidance , liquid fuel propulsion and control surfaces ( Reaction Control System in RV) to get a guided RV without the need for a BUS.

Guidance would be managed by Laser INS , Engine would be small Liquid Fuel Engine ( like in Agni 3 or Agni 2 ) , when in atmosphere RV changes trajectory in a way that makes it kinetically impossible ( BGRV ) or exteremely diffucult for ABM to intercept making trajectory computing impossible needing dozens of ABM interceptor versus one RV with no gurantee that it would still get intercepted as ABM has a very small intercept window.

Viktor wrote:Can you explain this part? Only altitude and trajectory?

To change altitude you again need some kind of engine, dont you if you dont want to loose its speed?

To generally explain the concept when the RV enters the atmosphere it has enough energy as it reenters the earth at Mach 22-24 , one can boost glide the RV for couple of 100 Km and can use control surfaces to change altitude and direction( i.e trajectory )without loosing much speed in trade off though it would still loose some but which makes ABM interception very difficult due to exterme thermal stress and speed that RV generates which is more in excess of 100 G ..... not to mention that RV is itself a small RCS target.

So basicly what RS-24 RV needs is Guidance and Control surfaces and does not need engine to change altitude and trajectory when it is in high atmosphere which is very easily possible but i understand RS-24 RV is far more advanced than what I have generically described above of how MaRV/BGRV type vehical work and no one will ever tell you how such advanced MaRV works its a highly classified subject.

In this book Lightning Rod William Yengest has described Topol-M RV has have some kind of Ramjet propulsion that when the RV enters atmosphere can propel Topol-M RV at greater than Mach 5 changing direction and can do a Low Level Run In at the Target defeating low level ABM interceptor.

It would be interesting to know:

1. How guidance is managed
2. What type of engine does it use
3. Based on what does it starts to change trajectory

If i had asked the same question , Yuri Solmonov would say all Nice Question Son lets have a cup of Coffee

But I can tell you India is working on similar concept for its Advanced Agni 5 and the way India would do is to develop each smaller RV with its own guidance , liquid fuel propulsion and control surfaces ( Reaction Control System in RV) to get a guided RV without the need for a BUS.

Guidance would be managed by Laser INS , Engine would be small Liquid Fuel Engine ( like in Agni 3 or Agni 2 ) , when in atmosphere RV changes trajectory in a way that makes it kinetically impossible ( BGRV ) or exteremely diffucult for ABM to intercept making trajectory computing impossible needing dozens of ABM interceptor versus one RV with no gurantee that it would still get intercepted as ABM has a very small intercept window.

I just failed to mention that besides developing Advanced RV the Russians are even developing new Nuclear Charges without the need to proof test it.

This is far more impressive then the RV development itself as it would indicate they have Software model to develop reliable nuclear weapons without the need to test it even a single time perhaps something more than a working software model.

As they are developing more than a single charge but different Thermonuclear weapons for different RV and ICBM/SLBM.

It shows a very high level of confidence even US is not developing new Nuclear Weapons design but have a program for reliability of existing design which from the above article even the Russians are doing it.

Austin wrote:I just failed to mention that besides developing Advanced RV the Russians are even developing new Nuclear Charges without the need to proof test it.

Good ! I suspect the budget for this program will come from the $770 billion 10 year modernization plan.

From recent statement of SRF chief who has mentioned that Avangrad is a Medium Missile , I am fairly certain Avangrad program will have minimum commonality with RS-24 and Topol-M as media makes out to be , the media was equally mistaken when they said Bulava was mostly similar to Topol-M

Although the only thing similar between Bulava and Topol-M is the MIRV from RS-24 they share the same stuff.

Avangrad is most certainly will have a throw up weight of 2-2.5 T to be classified as medium.

And the test time from 2010 for the RV first getting tested till 2015 which is the deployment time also suggest its a new ICBM.

It also seems certain that Russian Top Leadership is very certain that US and Europe will go the full way with ABM system developing newer interceptor and will deploy them in numbers over the next 2 decade contrary to the promise that US keeps making that its to deal with rouge state

Which is why two new ICBM Avangrade and Heavy one has been given the go ahead.

In 2011 an official source mentioned “modern low-yield nuclear ammunition being developed for use with future missiles and for replacing the existing low-yield warheads currently deployed on naval missile systems”. The source in question is “Naval Strategic Missile Systems”, a large volume edited by the head of the Federal Space Agency, Vladimir Popovkin. It says that the new ammunition was developed by VNIITF “using a compact thermonuclear device with improved yield and new automatics designed by VNIIEF”, and that it is “the first nuclear device to use an inertial adaptive detonation system”.

Any idea what the bolded part means ?

Thermonuclear device means it has a fission bomb that sets off a fusion reaction.

Such devices can often have a dial up capacity, so you can change the yield of the explosion right up to the time of the explosion.

“the first nuclear device to use an inertial adaptive detonation system”.

I rather suspect they mean that the device can be programmed to detonate to a specific yield before launch.

^^ Oh you are talking about variable yeald TN weapons , I think they already had that so does US.

This is something else I think and I did try to ask people who might be in the know and they are really no answers. It seems people in the trade and do the designing of weapons will know it.

Quite a few people I spoke to are really impressed by Russias ability to design a TN weapon of various types without the need to proof test it , Seems like these people are Gods of High Energy Physics.

Another possibility i was tolds is this could be a new generation TN device of single stage that does not need a fission device to trigger but can just use some other non-nuclear means to trigger.

An interview with head of the 12th Main Directorate of the Defense Ministry, Colonel Yuri owl

http://www.redstar.ru/index.php/2011-07-25-15-55-32/item/4428-garantyi-yadernogo-schita

How are nuclear weapons for the newest missile systems from those that are gradually removed from service?

- Development of modern technologies in the field of construction materials, microelectronics, information creates the conditions to optimize the performance of existing nuclear weapons, and the newly created.

The ones that are removed from service, are able to perform combat tasks, but due to technical and physical aging are less effective than modern counterparts. They fall short in important characteristics, such as life and, just as importantly, the safety of operation.

New types of nuclear weapons (nuclear warheads) have smaller size and weight, high reliability. The use of the latest generation of microelectronic control systems greatly increased accuracy and, as a result, the effectiveness of the combat mission. Using sophisticated algorithms, the exchange of information ensures the safety of guarantees of protection from enemy electronic warfare.

To improve the safe operation of the modern nuclear weapons introduced devices and systems, excluding their involvement and unauthorized use, but ensure their full-time job for combat use. Design of modern nuclear weapons provide protection against accidents of natural and man-made, while maintaining a safe condition after exposure to ammunition damaging factors such as fire, shock or drop. In the newly developed nuclear warheads based on innovative materials and technical solutions that can significantly reduce the time for their service and training for combat.

Object 370, Project 4202 and construction in Dombarovskiy

In April 2010, Rosnadzor, the regulatory body of the Russian government, issued a directive that ordered an environmental assessment of a very interesting project - "construction of facilities of the A35-71 launcher with a space head section at the Object 307 site ("создание комплекса ракеты-носителя А35-71 с космической головной частью на объекте 370"). This very brief phrase in a routine bureaucratic document raises quite a few questions - what are exactly the "A35-71 launcher", its "space head section", and "Object 370"? The short answer is that we don't really know. But we could guess (with a lot of help from my readers and some combing through the internet).

Object 307 is apparently a large construction project at a site 7 km away from Yasnyy. There are two R-36M silos of the Dombarovskiy missile division that are located at that distance from Yasnyy. One, to the north of the town, has been converted to the Yasnyy space launch site that supports launches of the Dnepr system, so it is already in use. The other one, to the east, is just a regular silo, which looks more suitable for a new project. The construction at the Object 370 site appears to be quite intensive - the site includes an "experimental testing base" as well as a number of buildings and extensive support infrastructure, including a new railroad link to Yasnyy.

The most interesting part of the construction activity appears to involve conversion of the old R-36M silo - SKTB-16, a design bureau with a long history of work on ICBM silos, mentions "conversion of P718 facility to P771 facility" as one of its projects. Now, P718 is apparently the 15P718, a standard R-36M silo; the missile itself has an index 15A18. So, P771 most likely refers to a silo that would house the A35-71 launcher, whatever it is (we'll get to the A35-71 in a moment). I couldn't find a direct connection between the SKTB-16 work and the Object 370, but there are not very many R-36M silos that could be converted. The Rocket Forces has kept some of these silos - there may be some in Uzhur and there are definitely a few in Dombarovskiy. Given the level of activity in Dombarovskiy, it is likely that the Object 370 is indeed the place where the silo conversion takes place.

The index A35-71 probably refers to some modification of the 15A35 missile system, otherwise known as UR-100NUTTH or SS-19. The index seems to suggest that the missile itself has not changed very much and the most important modification is the new "space head section" (космическая головная часть). I must admit it is really no more than a guess, but it seems to be reasonably consistent with other bits and pieces of information. So, what is this new "head section" and why the missile that carries it could not be deployed in old UR-100NUTTH/SS-19 silos?

The SKTB-16 report mentions that the conversion is done as part of the Project 4202 (в интересах темы "4202"). This is something new we could work with. As it turns out, Project 4202 is "one of the most important projects" of NPO Mashinostroyeniya - the old Chelomey design bureau that designed the UR-100NUTTH missile. A search through the NPOMash site reveals that this work involves manufacturing of something that has several sections of a fairly complex shape and uses some non-metallic and anti-radar materials - not a bad candidate for the new "head section" of the "A35-71 launcher."

A few more dots to connect - in 2004, NPOMash demonstrated what was described as a "hypersonic maneuverable warhead" that was flown on a UR-100NUTTH missile. Could that be the new "space head section"? I would say it's quite possible. It is a bit strange that it would be described as a "space" warhead, but it does seem to travel through space for a significant part of its flight, so it won't be much of a stretch. If this is indeed what the Project 4202 is about, it explains why its deployment requires modification of a silo - as I understand, this warhead is rather big, so it won't fit into a standard UR-100NUTTH silo. The R-36M silos are much deeper - the missile is about 9 meters longer than UR-100NUTTH - so it could probably accommodate the bigger "head section" as well. But the silos may need some modification - unlike R-36M family, UR-100NUTTH is a "hot launch" missile. I'm not sure this would be the main reason why the conversion is necessary, though - there might be others.

The "hypersonic warhead" is not the only possible explanation for the activity at the Object 370. The description of the A35-71 as a "launcher" (ракета-носитель) seems to imply that it would be used to deliver payload into space. I thought that the Naryad-V ASAT system is a reasonably good candidate as well - it was supposed to be deployed on UR-100NUTTH missiles. But a colleague who spent some serious time researching Project 4202 assured me that it's not Naryad-V. Another argument against Naryad is that an ASAT kill vehicle is unlikely to need anti-radar coating or a complex shape. Also, there is a possibility that Object 370 has nothing to do with the Project 4202.

Another question about this whole enterprise is whether it makes sense to develop a new payload for the UR-100NUTTH missile, which will turn 40 years old in a few years. One possible answer to that is that Russia may be planning to resume production of UR-100NUTTH or build a derivative of this missile - there are signs that something like this is under consideration. It's also possible that the new payload could bde deployed on Topol-M, although this does not seem to be part of the current plan.

If all this activity is indeed about deployment of a new system that would carry some kind of a "space head section" it could raise a few questions about whether this new system should be covered by the New START treaty. The treaty defines a ballistic missile as a "a missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle that has a ballistic trajectory over most of its flight path." This definition would probably exempt some of the systems that the United States wants to deploy as part of its Prompt Global Strike program. The U.S., of course, would argue that these systems should not be considered "new kinds of strategic offensive arms" as they do not meet the definition of the treaty - they are not ballistic missiles, for example. Russia might be happy to agree with that position, since that would leave its own systems outside of the treaty as well. But unlike the U.S., Russia might want to deploy them with nuclear warheads - this would probably give the United States a pause.

I should say I remain quite skeptical about all these fancy systems - it is unlikely that in terms of delivered payload or the ability to penetrate missile defenses (probably a big selling point in Russia) they would outperform ICBMs. But that's never been the point of these kind of projects anyway.

In the end, I think the long answer to the questions about Object 370, A35-71, and Project 4202 is very much similar to the short one - we don't really know. But there is something interesting (if not quite reasonable) going on at Dombarovskiy. My guess is that we'll soon hear more about it.

Interesting, this might be Russian response to US secretive small shuttle launch.

Russia Develops Multiple Nuclear SystemsBill Sweetman

Austin wrote:

TR1 wrote:Any way to modernize Topol-M to the RS-24 warhead capacity?
Only the warhead bus is different AFAIK, and it would turn 18 mobile launchers from 18 warheads to over 100.

Why would you want to do that ? Replacing the third stage and bus wont be an easy task it better to build new ones.

A single 800 Kt warhead has its own value to take out Deep Superhardened C&C centers like say NORAD

800 Kt warhead is too small to take out NORAD. However, a  R-36M (SS-18 Satan) armed with a 20 Mt warhead would do.

How large is Russia's enriched uranium stockpile? Apparently it's big enough to make 30,000 nuclear warheads.

During 1949-1963, the Soviet Union built four large industrial uranium-enrichment plants. All initially used gaseous diffusion for isotope separation. Starting in 1964, however, the Soviet Union began introducing gas centrifuges and this transition was completed in the early 1990s.
In 1989, the Soviet government announced that "it is ceasing the production of highly enriched uranium". In fact, all production of HEU had already stopped in 1987-1988 and, because of the huge excess quantities of HEU that have become available as a result of the down-sizing of the Soviet Cold War nuclear stockpile, it has apparently not resumed since.
We estimate that by the time the production of HEU was ended, the Soviet Union had produced about 1250  +/- 120  tons of 90% - enriched uranium. This number does not include the  enriched uranium that was used to manufactured naval fuel, fuel for research reactors, most of which was produced as less than 90%-enriched HEU (220 tons of 90%-enriched equivalent). Of the 1250 tons of HEU, 500 tons have been committed to be blended down to low-enriched (LEU) to be sold to the United States, with about 400 tons already blended down as of September 2010. A total of 90 tons of HEU were consumed in separate blend-down programs for fuel for tritium-production reactors and research-reactors, in "spike-fuel" for the plutonium-production reactors, in nuclear weapon tests, and lost to processing waste.
It is estimated that Russia had 770 tons of HEU remaining as of September 2010 and that its total holdings will have been reduced to about 665 tons by the end of the HEU blend-down program in 2013. This includes material in and available for weapons and reserved for fueling naval, research and civilian reactors. At 20 kg per warhead, this would be sufficient for more than 30,000 warheads.

http://russianforces.org/podvig/2010/12/russia_highly_enriched_uranium.shtml

http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/faculty-staff/pavel-podvig/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program

Finally even Pavel Podvig admits that Russians are developing new Nuclear Warhead and not using old design , check comment section

http://russianforces.org/blog/2014/01/russian_strategic_forces_in_20.shtml


This makes Russia the only country that using Warhead Design based on computer simulation and not actual testing

And testing it now Austin (for the third time)

Another new warhead test in a Topol launch from Kapustin Yar

In that case thats a lot of reloads-   

I think if the FOAB wouldn't weight 9-11 tones it would have been great as a warhead on iskanders with 44 kT and wouldn't even vialote any treaties, could be a great asset for ballistic missile purpose.

FOAB is overkill for anything that is not a mil. base or a small village   . Besides focus now is on precision strikes- take out the mobile HQ/radio/ ammo/fuel/supply dump with a 500 pound bomb or a cruise missile, and you significantly degrade the fighting capability of an enemy.
Tho FOAB is perfect for punitive strikes- wiping out entire swaths of opium/coca fields and training camps.

Werewolf wrote:I think if the FOAB wouldn't weight 9-11 tones it would have been great as a warhead on iskanders with 44 kT and wouldn't even vialote any treaties, could be a great asset for ballistic missile purpose.

Maybe if they made a scaled up version of Iskander-M but with Topol/Yars-24's TEL and launching tube, and as you said could be very interesting in the short/theater range ballistic missile role and wouldn't be subject to the INF treaty!   

Whole video on this link is great but the biggest SUPRISE from 5:20 ... enjoy

European missile defense plans and the U.S. with regard to Ukraine

MARV is back

At the "Innovation Days of the Russian Ministry of Defense" the Makeyev Design Bureau (formally known as the Academician V.P.Makeyev State Rocket Centre, GRTs) presented one of its recent projects - a maneuvering re-entry vehicle (MARV).



The leaflet distributed by the GRTs (at the open part of the event), said that it's a "high-speed maneuvering [combat] re-entry vehicle for land-based and sea-based strategic missile systems." As one would expect, it's advertised as a way to defeat missile defenses by preforming "unpredictable maneuvers with high transverse accelerations." It apparently relies on aerodynamics to do those, as it can only deal with the "low-altitude" (i.e. terminal) defense. So, it's not the Project 4202 or whatever the hypersonic vehicle Russia may be working on.

This is nothing particularly new, since MARV technology has been around for decades and the last time it was clear that the cost (in terms of payload) is not worth the price of penetrating defenses, especially when those defenses are non-existent. Nothing has changed since then - the only terminal (strategic) missile defense is deployed around Moscow and dealing with that would hardly require a sophisticated MARV. Someone in the GRTs marketing department didn't quite do their homework.

Someone in the GRTs marketing department didn't quite do their homework.

Actually if you want high levels of accuracy then you need MARV technology as most things that reduce accuracy can't be allowed for at launch... things like the height at which the warhead enters the atmosphere and the angle it hits it at. Equally wind conditions through the altitude levels all the way to the ground require course corrections to impact... a MARV can get CEP to below 20m while a MIRV would likely manage 250m or so.

George1 wrote:This is nothing particularly new, since MARV technology has been around for decades and the last time it was clear that the cost (in terms of payload) is not worth the price of penetrating defenses, especially when those defenses are non-existent. Nothing has changed since then - the only terminal (strategic) missile defense is deployed around Moscow and dealing with that would hardly require a sophisticated MARV. Someone in the GRTs marketing department didn't quite do their homework.

Vintage Podvig.

The real reason for Russian MARVs is one that I have never seen having been mentioned in the public. It's a bit of a technical reason though.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
The real reason for Russian MARVs is one that I have never seen having been mentioned in the public. It's a bit of a technical reason though.

Can you please shed some light on this ? Thanks .