What a British think tank gets wrong about Russia’s ultimate weapons

A new RUSI report questions the future of Moscow’s strategic forces. Its conclusions leave crucial parts of the picture out.

A few days ago, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) released a report titled ‘Russia’s Nuclear Deterrent and Its Weapons Procurement’. The report examines the development of Russia’s nuclear triad amid stringent financial constraints and the rising threat of a potential US non-nuclear counterforce strike.

The author of the report, Sidharth Kaushal, makes conclusions based on the publications of Russian military experts in the journal ‘Voennaya Mysl’ (Military Thought), as well as established Western practices for analyzing Russia’s nuclear capabilities.

A British diagnosis of Russia’s nuclear future

Here are the key takeaways from the report:

• Paradigm shift: Russia is being compelled to shift its focus from a posture of “assured retaliation” (increasing the survivability of mobile missile systems and submarine-launched ballistic forces to effectively counter a first strike) to a Launch on Warning (LOW) posture (employing its arsenal early against an enemy attack).
• Vulnerability of mobile forces: Advancements in US space reconnaissance make the concealment of mobile ground-based systems increasingly ineffective.
• Greater reliance on silo-based launchers, which are viewed as more secure bases for strategic missiles. Silo-based systems will comprise a greater proportion of throw weight, particularly since RS-28 Sarmat heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles are silo-launched to ensure instant readiness.

Read more

What if NATO’s ‘Theory of Victory’ is a recipe for disaster?

• Economic challenges: According to the report, modern Russia cannot pursue a large-scale quantitative increase in its missile arsenal due to the enormous costs associated with developing and maintaining the conventional armed forces amidst the ongoing military operation in Ukraine.
• Due to cost parity, the domestic production costs of strategic missile systems compete with conventional weaponry – for example, producing one Yars missile is equivalent to the cost of 15 T-72 tanks.
• A labor shortage in the nuclear and missile industries is unavoidable in the current conditions and necessitates a significant increase in wages.

The author also provides interesting assessments of specific weapons systems:

• RS-28 Sarmat: The report projects no quantitative increase in the deployment of these missiles. Emphasis is placed on a short boost phase and a high payload capacity for overcoming missile defense systems.
• The medium-range Oreshnik missile is seen as a priority in the European theater of operations and as a tool for preemptively neutralizing US Dark Eagle systems in Europe. Given manufacturing shortages, it is expected to be deployed primarily in its nuclear variant.
• The long-range KH-BD air-launched cruise missile (with a range up to 6,500 km) is designed to be carried by Tu-95 and Tu-160 bombers, in light of the lack of progress on the PAK DA next-generation stealth strategic bomber.

Read more

American bombs, European pilots: Who does what in NATO’s nuclear club?

• Burevestnik and Poseidon programs are considered technically unfeasible by the author of the report; due to the high costs, they are perceived primarily as methods of psychological intimidation
• Space-based warfare: The report highlights the jamming of US missile defense systems as a major priority for Russia. It predicts the launch of nuclear electronic warfare satellites into orbit and the eventual deployment of full-scale space-based nuclear weapons to create massive plasma fields in the ionosphere.

How can we assess this report? Generally, the picture is more complex than described. Like in the Indian parable about the blind men and the elephant, the author of the report sees certain aspects of the ‘elephant’ but fails to see the general picture, which may be quite different. Let’s take a closer look.

The logic behind Russia’s nuclear shield

Regarding the structure of the strategic nuclear forces and the shifting balance between mobile and stationary systems, the distinctive feature of the Soviet, and now Russian, approach lies in balancing mobile and stationary strategic missile systems. Despite advances in satellite reconnaissance, mobile missile systems hold certain advantages: for example, hundreds of them are deployed over vast territories. Moreover, several Peresvet laser weapon systems have already been deployed; these can blind potential adversaries’ optical reconnaissance systems at a critical moment. While reliance on space-based systems is understandable, it’s important to note that these technologies are also vulnerable to various factors, as we have seen recently.

Stationary missile systems come with a significant drawback: it’s relatively easy to spot their location. However, they offer a high level of protection against non-nuclear strikes and maintain relatively high (though not absolute) survivability in the event of a nuclear exchange. Russia’s strategy combines hard-to-detect mobile missile systems with stationary systems that can be employed in response to a nuclear attack. This combination allows for greater flexibility and multiple operational scenarios. Considering this strategy, it’s likely that a large inventory of Sarmat missiles isn’t necessary – two regiments with 50+ missile silos might suffice. This doesn’t indicate a shift in priorities but rather reaffirms a conservative and justified traditional approach.

Read more

Russian air defense explained: How Moscow counters mass drone attacks

We must also note the naval component, which ensures reliable retaliatory capability. Both Russian and Western analysts have grown accustomed to the fact that the Bulava submarine-launched solid-fuel missile has been deployed and will eventually replace other ballistic missiles in the Russian Navy. However, that’s not entirely true. Project 667BDRM DELTA-IV submarines equipped with liquid-fueled R-29RM missiles remain on duty. These missiles are among the most effective strategic systems in terms of their energy-mass efficiency. Judging by statements from 2022, it seems that Russia may very well renew its interest in liquid-fueled sea-based missiles. Maintaining two centers for naval missile production is more expensive than having just one, but if it results in a higher number of warheads with fewer missiles, financial concerns could be overlooked.

Lastly, the demonization of the Oreshnik missile in the West is understandable and, overall, justified. Its minimal flight time presents a significant threat. There’s also the option for hybrid use – deploying it with non-nuclear payloads to signal intentions or for use in low-intensity conflicts. The existence of such a missile system increases the range of potential scenarios for employing strategic forces and provides substantial flexibility.

Even a few launch facilities would suffice for these purposes, which raises questions about the costly deployment of multiple brigades. Most likely, we’re talking about the deployment of divisions with 3-4 TELs instead of full brigades consisting of 12 TELs. This strategy also allows to increase the number of deployed missiles, should the need arise.

Beyond the bluff: Weapons built for retaliation

The assessment of the aviation component of the strategic nuclear forces seems fairly accurate, but it’s necessary to note that several other weapon programs are also being developed alongside the KH-BD missiles. Russian defense contractors consistently work on multiple projects, regardless of the current financial climate. It’s reasonable to assume they’re developing air-launched hypersonic missile systems for both tactical and strategic aviation, as well as various types of cruise missiles for strategic use. Additionally, it’s highly likely that a range of tactical munitions for front-line aviation is also under development. Similarly, work on the new PAK DA strategic bomber is probably ongoing, even if the urgent need for this expensive project has diminished.

Read more

Europe’s next crisis is already hiding behind the riots

I’d like to highlight the assessments regarding the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile and the Poseidon nuclear-powered UUV. Both systems boast practically unlimited range and the ability to remain airborne/underwater for extended periods of time. There’s a lot of speculation and publicity surrounding these projects, and it makes sense to leverage such groundbreaking initiatives for propaganda purposes. However, this doesn’t negate their real military significance or the seriousness of intentions regarding their deployment.

Infrastructure for these projects wouldn’t be carried out solely for PR purposes. At least one major base with several launch systems is being constructed for Burevestnik missiles, and for the Poseidon UUV, basing facilities are being built in the Pacific Ocean, and it is set to be deployed to the Northern Fleet.

Experts monitor progress and construction through satellite imagery. Tracking testing activities is more complex, but there are signs that work continues in this direction as well. Most importantly, these combat systems possess an unknown yet potentially immense retaliatory capability, which is difficult to evaluate due to the absence of analogues. What’s certain is that their potential is significant. Poseidon UUVs may not be able to target naval fleets, but their true purpose is to ensure guaranteed retaliatory strikes capable of causing total destruction along an adversary’s coastline.

In summary, despite economic and financial challenges, Russia will undoubtedly find the resources necessary to maintain and advance its nuclear triad, or even the more powerful new strategic nuclear forces.