Article

2007-02-08 Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-02-08 13:49|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 It's always better to spend money on toys than repaving the streets.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-02-08 14:22|| 2007-02-08 14:22|| Front Page Top

#2 We can't go below that

Soon, you will have no choice with your population totals falling like Brittney Spear's underpants.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-02-08 15:15|| 2007-02-08 15:15|| Front Page Top

#3 Jeez, I hope that the Russians are stupid enough to spend their defense rubles on unneeded carriers, instead of the necessary spare parts, armour, and CAS aircraft. Their last attempt at a full blown carrier was barely bigger than an Essex class ship that the US had in the 1950s. The Russians also have not mastered a true VSTOL jumpjet like the Harrier, nor do they have a proven carrier air superiority or attack aircraft in their inventory.

For the money they are wasting on the carrier experiments, they could fund spares production to bring all of their remaining T-62, T-72, T-80, and T-90 stocks back up to par; they could also fund the expansion of their light armour/wheeled APCs to all the motorized regiments; plus they could equip all their infantry units with the AN-94 and AK-103; and they could still have money left to upgrade some of their bases beyond Third World conditions.
Also a better place to spend money than on ICBMs is the Russian CAS fleet : spares for Su-25/Su-39 would be a much better investment than 17 new ICBMs.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-02-08 15:50|| 2007-02-08 15:50|| Front Page Top

#4 Yeah, the Russians want to spend money on their ICBMs, instead of upgrades on what it takes to fight tomorrow's wars. They seem to have the same mentality as their Iranian clients. They better not try the suicide boomer option, as they do not have the population for that mission, negative birthrate and all.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2007-02-08 16:04|| 2007-02-08 16:04|| Front Page Top

#5 Hey, better they sink money into useless ICBMs than actually helping their armed forces with real weapons.

The Russians seem to have this obsession with ICBMs and strategic bombers. That's great and all, but it doesn't help one bit against the threats that Russia is facing today.

Posted by gromky 2007-02-08 16:13|| 2007-02-08 16:13|| Front Page Top

#6 This isn't a particularly big deal and has been in the works for a long time. RT-2UTTH - Topol-M SS-27
Work on the new Topol-M ICBM is lagging seriously behind the initial timetable. Defense state order financing for the next decade provides that by 2003 there will be on the order of 250-300 Topol-M missiles in service. A total of 1.5 trillion [old] rubles were included in the 1997 budget for the development of the Topol-M missile complex. The Russian Missile Troops are permitted to have 300 Topol RS-12M mobile missiles under the START II Treaty, and the RVSN must acquire two Topol-M regiments annually up to 2001, which will cost 3.7 billion new rubles. The Strategic Missile Force plans to deploy mobile Topol-M missile systems at the end of 2002 or early in 2003. A total of R700 billion would be required to place 450 Topol-M missiles in service by 2005 to maintain parity under START II. But the present 55 percent funding will permit production of at the very most 10-15 missiles at this facility each year year. As a result the Strategic Missile Troops would have a total of approximately 350-400 ICBM warheads, not the 800-900 which are permited within the framework of the START II Treaty. On 15 April 1998 Acting Prime Minister Sergey Kiriyenko approved a schedule of monthly budget appropriations for the Topol-M, which he noted would make up the core of Russia's strategic nuclear forces.

In December 1997 after four test launches, the first two Topol-M systems were put on alert for a trial period with the Taman Division at Tatischevo in the Saratov region. As of late July 1998 two more Topol-M launch sites were completed and were awaiting acceptance trials. Russia put a regiment of 10 Topol-M missiles on duty in 1998. By that time the Strategic Rocket Forces had carried out 6 successful test launches. A second regiment of another 10 missiles entered service in December 1999. A third regiment, of 10 Topol-M missiles will be deployed in 2000.

The Topol-M missile system is being commissioned in the Russian strategic nuclear forces' grouping regardless of whether heavy missiles are stood down from combat alert duty or not. It is intended that the Topol-M ICBM grouping will comprise an equal number of mobile and silo-launched missiles. Some 90 of the 360 launch silos vacated by the RS-20 ICBM's, which are being stood down from combat alert duty, need to be converted for the latter. Apart from Saratov Oblast the Topol-M systems will be deployed in Valday, the southern Urals, and the Altay.

The START II strategic arms reduction treaty, signed with the United States in 1993 but not yet ratified by Russia's parliament, calls for Russia to replace its SS-18 missiles, which have multiple warheads, with single warhead missiles such as the Topol-M. Although deployed with a single warhead, the Topol-M could be converted into a multiple-warhead missile, which was prohibited by the START II treaty. Topol-M could carry at least three and perhaps as many as six warheads. The Topol-M missiles could be transformed into missiles with multiple reentry vehicles [MIRV's], since their throw weight allows accommodating 3-4 warheads on a missile. The warheads could be taken from some of those ground-based and naval missiles which will be withdrawn from the order of battle in coming years. The Topol-M can carry a maneuverable warhead, which was tested in the summer of 1998. Topol-M also has a shorter engine-burn time, to minimize satellite detection on launch.

Posted by RWV 2007-02-08 16:58|| 2007-02-08 16:58|| Front Page Top

#7 I'm slow today. It now occurs to me that actually feeding, clothing, arming and paying their troops might be a more effective investment.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-02-08 19:21|| 2007-02-08 19:21|| Front Page Top

#8 Maybe this is an investment Russia intends to sell, not to field on their own behalf.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-02-08 19:28|| 2007-02-08 19:28|| Front Page Top

#9 One article does suggest that the reason for the new ICBMs is that fact that the old ones are just damned dangerous now : when one is testfired, it blows up in the silo. So the Russians may be trying to maintain a minimum level ICBM force - perhaps to warn off the Chinese.

However, the carriers are just pissing money down a rathole and the state of Russian military bases makes America's urban ghettos look appealing. Also, Chechnya has proven that the Russian Air Force is desperately short of CAS aircraft, munitions, and training.
All of those items are much better choices for funding, if the Russians truly wish to improve their military and not just reward their friends in the military-industrial complex - which actually exists in the CIS, unlike the fantasies of same in the West.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-02-08 20:20|| 2007-02-08 20:20|| Front Page Top

#10 Russia still reserves its right to launch a unilateral preemptive conventional strike(s) to protect its interests, plus Ivanov has said that it was a mistake for Russia to eliminate IRBMS = INF's.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-02-08 21:01|| 2007-02-08 21:01|| Front Page Top

14:09 wxjames
23:51 KBK
23:38 KBK
23:12 Barbara Skolaut
23:12 sinse
23:07 sinse
23:03 sinse
22:50 Angaviling Thomoter8773
22:38 liberalhawk
22:38 Biff! Sock! Kapow!
22:37 liberalhawk
22:36 Anonymoose
22:36 Fleck Graish5949
22:32 SteveS
22:32 Mullah Lodabullah
22:31 liberalhawk
22:25 Alaska Paul
22:24 Omolurt Elmeaper6990
22:21 Broadhead6
22:19 Broadhead6
22:02 JosephMendiola
21:43 Alaska Paul
21:40 Barbara Skolaut
21:40 Alaska Paul