Russia's having problems with its newest ICBM. It drove away critical Ukrainian missile expertise.
Russia is experiencing repeated struggles with its new ICBM.
Russia used to use Ukrainian expertise to work on that type of missile.
But Russia's attack on Ukraine in 2014 and its 2022 invasion isolated it from that expertise.
Russia's ICBM program is in trouble, facing persistent struggles with its new Sarmat missile. And it doesn't help that it's cut off expertise it once depended on by waging war on its neighbor.
"Historically, a lot of the ICBM manufacturing plants and personnel were based in Ukraine," Timothy Wright, a missile expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told BI.
Ukraine became independent when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, but its defense industry continued to be intertwined with Russia. Ukraine has expertise in nuclear and missile technology, as well as manufacturing knowledge.
Russia had been decreasing its reliance but had not yet severed critical ties when it attacked Ukraine in 2014, leaving it with gaps that could affect development projects.
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia has developed capable solid-fueled ICBMs. But with Sarmat, it decided to use a liquid-fueled system.
The problem with that "is that the Russians haven't done this in about 30-plus years," Wright explained. "They haven't got any recent experience doing this sort of stuff with land-based ICBMs."
Fabian Hoffman, a missile expert at the Oslo Nuclear Project, told BI that it's "a bit of a question of: 'Have they retained the expertise?' Because all the people who built their previous missile have retired or dead."
"Some of them are in Ukraine, which had a big part in the Russian ICBM program," he said. "So that's a major issue."
Wright described Russia's choice to use liquid fuel technology as "a really weird choice that they made" as it "is something the Ukrainians previously did for them." He said "that's one of the reasons why they're having lots of problems."
The Sarmat is designed to replace the Soviet-era R-36, which NATO calls the SS-18 "Satan." Its earliest version first entered service in the 1970s and has been modified since.
The company that designed and maintained it, Pivdenmash, known as Yuzhmash in Russia, was in what is now modern-day Ukraine. (Russia appeared to target the Pivdenmash plant in an attack with a new missile type in November).
Russia wanted to develop more of this kind of expertise and capability itself. "After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia found itself in a position where essentially it was having to rely on external countries to maintain its existing forces and also then contribute to the development of other ones," Wright said.
But doing so was a challenge that took time. "So they continued working with Ukrainians up until 2014," he said.
In March 2014, Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimea region, claiming it as part of Russia despite international outcry, and ignited conflict in Ukraine's east that continued until Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
In response to Russia's actions in Crimea, "the Ukrainians pretty much terminated all contracts around the maintenance of ICBMs at that point. So that's where the big cutoff happens," Wright said.
The collapse in cooperation between Ukraine and Russia "accelerated" Russia's efforts to replace the R-36 so it would not rely on Ukraine as much, Maxim Starchak, an expert on Russian nuclear policy and weaponry, wrote in a 2023 analysis.
"All cooperation with Ukrainian contractors ceased," and the responsibility for maintaining the R-36s went to Russia's Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau. "But this was a stopgap solution. Launches ceased, with missiles and warheads simply undergoing annual checks."
Ukraine banned military cooperation with Russia and stopped supplying Russia with any military components in June 2014. That left Russia without much of the expertise it wanted for Sarmat.
Neither of the two strategic-missile developers in Russia — the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau nor the Moscow Institute for Thermal Technology — have recent experience developing a liquid-fueles ICBM, Wright said.
Ukraine also made other ICBM components, like guidance systems and security protocols to prevent the unauthorized detonation of a nuclear device.
Russian military experts had predicted Ukraine pulling its cooperation with Russia would completely collapse Ukraine's defense industry. And while it did suffer, that industry is now thriving, with homegrown defense companies and major Western manufacturers all working in the country in response to Russia's invasion.Russia still has many missiles that are hitting Ukraine and pose a big threat to Europe, and it has recently ramped up its missile production. But Russia's aggressive actions in Ukraine appear to have continued to harm its missile program. Roscosmos, a Russian space agency that also makes missiles, said last year that canceled international contracts had cost it almost $2.1 billion.
Many countries have put sanctions on Russia in response to the invasion, and the sustained military effort is also hammering Russia's economy. Hoffmann described Russia as having "really restricted monetary means" to fix its missile problems.
Russia's RS-28 Sarmat ICBM appeared to have suffered a catastrophic failure during a September test, appearing to have blown up. Satellite pictures showed a massive crater around the launchpad at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, a spaceport in northwestern Russia.
That apparent failure followed what missile experts said were multiple other problems. The powerful missile's ejection tests and its flight testing have both been repeatedly delayed, and it previously had at least two canceled flight tests and at least one other flight test failure, according to the Royal United Services Institute think tank in London.
Russia has poured a lot of money and propaganda into the Sarmat missiles. President Vladimir Putin in 2018 bragged that "missile defense systems are useless against them, absolutely pointless" and that "no other country has developed anything like this."
But it doesn't work right. With the setbacks facing the Sarmat and no other replacement, the R-36 keeps having its life extended. Wright said that the missile is "already really, really past its service life." And sooner or later, things are going to fall apart.
And Sarmat's struggle "obviously is proof of the fact that whatever expertise there is in Russia right now, it's not enough to complete this program in a satisfactory way," Hoffmann said.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
27 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Russian attacks on Ukraine kill at least 5 and injure over a dozen
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A Russian drone and missile attack on Ukraine's capital overnight killed at least four people and injured others, according to Ukraine's emergency services, as rescue workers and firefighters sought to remove people they believed trapped under debris in a partially collapsed apartment building. The strikes came nearly a week after a combined Russian attack on Ukraine last Tuesday killed 28 people in Kyiv, 23 of them in a residential building that collapsed after sustaining a direct hit by a missile. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called that attack one of the biggest bombardments of the war, now in its fourth year. In the early hours of Monday, drones and missiles hit residential areas, hospitals and sports infrastructure in numerous districts across Kyiv, emergency services said, with the most severe damage occurring in the Shevchenkivskyi district, where one section of a five-story apartment building collapsed. Four people were confirmed dead in the attack on the building while 10 others had been rescued, emergency services said, adding they believed others were still trapped beneath the debris. Another person was killed and eight injured in the city of Bila Tserkva in the Kyiv region, around 85 kilometers (53 miles) southwest of the capital.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Russian attacks on Ukraine kill at least 5 and injure over a dozen
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A Russian drone and missile attack on Ukraine's capital overnight killed at least four people and injured others, according to Ukraine's emergency services, as rescue workers and firefighters sought to remove people they believed trapped under debris in a partially collapsed apartment building. The strikes came nearly a week after a combined Russian attack on Ukraine last Tuesday killed 28 people in Kyiv, 23 of them in a residential building that collapsed after sustaining a direct hit by a missile. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called that attack one of the biggest bombardments of the war, now in its fourth year. In the early hours of Monday, drones and missiles hit residential areas, hospitals and sports infrastructure in numerous districts across Kyiv, emergency services said, with the most severe damage occurring in the Shevchenkivskyi district, where one section of a five-story apartment building collapsed. Four people were confirmed dead in the attack on the building while 10 others had been rescued, emergency services said, adding they believed others were still trapped beneath the debris. Another person was killed and eight injured in the city of Bila Tserkva in the Kyiv region, around 85 kilometers (53 miles) southwest of the capital. ___ Follow AP's coverage of the war in Ukraine at
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump Got This One Right
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. 'Why are the wrong people doing the right thing?' Henry Kissinger is supposed to have once asked, in a moment of statesman-like perplexity. That question recurred as Donald Trump, backed by a visibly perturbed vice president and two uneasy Cabinet secretaries, announced that the United States had just bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. It is a matter of consternation for all the right people, who, as Kissinger well knew, are often enough dead wrong. The brute fact is that Trump, more than any other president, Republican or Democrat, has taken decisive action against one of the two most dangerous nuclear programs in the world (the other being North Korea's). The Iranian government has for a generation not only spewed hatred at the United States and Israel, and at the West generally, but committed and abetted terrorism throughout the Middle East and as far as Europe and Latin America. Every day, its drones deliver death to Ukrainian cities. The Iranian government is a deeply hostile regime that has brought misery to many. A nuclear-armed Iran might very well have used a nuclear weapon against Israel, which is, as one former Iranian president repeatedly declared, 'a one-bomb country.' Because Israel might well have attempted to forestall such a blow with a preemptive nuclear strike of its own, the question is more likely when an Iranian bomb would have triggered the use of nuclear weapons, not whether it would have done so. But even without that apocalyptic possibility, a nuclear-armed Iran would have its own umbrella of deterrence to continue the terror and subversion with which it has persecuted its neighbors. There is no reason to think the regime has any desire to moderate those tendencies. In his address to the nation last night, Trump was right to speak—and to speak with what sounded like unfeigned fury—about the American servicemen and servicewomen maimed and killed by Iranian IEDs in Iraq. It was no less than the truth. Shame on his predecessors for not being willing to say so publicly. When someone is killing your men and women, a commander in chief is supposed to say—and, more important, do—something about it. Trump was also right in making this a precise, limited use of force while holding more in reserve. Israel has done the heavy lifting here, but he has contributed an essential element—and no more. He was right as well (for the strikes were indeed an act of war) to threaten far worse punishment if Iran attempts to retaliate. The rush in many quarters—including right-wing isolationists and anguished progressives—to conjure up prospects of a war that will engulf the Middle East reflected their emotions rather than any analytic judgment. Iran, it cannot be said often enough, is a weak state. Its air defenses no longer exist. Its security apparatus has been thoroughly penetrated by Israeli, American, and other intelligence agencies. Its finances are a wreck and its people are hostile to their rulers. For that matter, anyone who has served in uniform in the Middle East during the past few decades knows that Iran has consistently conducted low-level war against the United States through its proxies. Could Iran attempt to attack shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz? Yes—and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy would die in large numbers in their speedboats or in their bases as they prepared to do so. The United States and its allies have prepared for that scenario for a long time, and Iranian sailors' desire for martyrdom has been overstated. Could Iran try to launch terror attacks abroad? Yes, but the idea that there is a broad silent network of Iranian terrorists just waiting for the signal to strike is chimerical. And remember, Iran's nuclear fangs have been pulled. True enough, not permanently, as many of the president's critics have already earnestly pointed out on television. But so much of that kind of commentary is pseudo-sophistication: Almost no strategic problem gets solved permanently, unless you are Rome dealing with Carthage in the Third Punic War, destroying the city, slaughtering its inhabitants, and sowing the furrows with salt. For some period—five years, maybe 10—Iran will not have a nuclear option. Its key facilities are smashed and its key scientists dead or living in fear of their lives. Similar complaints were made about the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. The Israelis expected to delay the Iraqi program by no more than a year or two—but instead, the program was deferred indefinitely. As things go, crushing the facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, following a sustained Israeli campaign against similar targets, was a major achievement, and a problem deferred for five years may be deferred forever. As for Iran, in 1988 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini agreed to 'drink from the poisoned chalice' and accept a cease-fire with Iraq. He did so because the Iraq war was going badly, but also because he believed that the United States was willing to fight Iran: Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, following a mine explosion that damaged an American warship, involved the U.S. Navy sinking Iranian warships and destroying Iran's military installations. In 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran reportedly paused its nuclear program. When American forces in Iraq finally picked up five elite Quds Force members in 2007, the Iranians pulled back from their activities in Iraq as well. The killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020 elicited only one feeble spasm of violence. The bottom line is that Iran's leaders do not relish the idea of tackling the United States directly, and that is because they are not fools. The president is an easy man to hate. He has done many bad things: undermining the rule of law, sabotaging American universities, inflicting wanton cruelty on illegal immigrants, lying, and engaging in corruption. With his fractured syntax and diction (including the peculiar signature 'Thank you for your attention to this matter' at the end of his more bombastic posts on Truth Social), he is easy to dismiss as a huckster. The sycophancy and boastfulness of his subordinates, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth when briefing the attack, are distasteful. But contempt and animosity, justified in some cases, are bad ways of getting into his mind and assessing his actions. Trump has surprised both friends and critics here. The isolationist wing of the MAGA movement was smacked down, although its members probably include the vice president and top media figures such as Tucker Carlson. Trump has confounded the posters of TACO ('Trump always chickens out') memes. He has disproved the notion that he takes his marching orders directly from the Kremlin, for the strikes were not in Russia's interest. He has left prominent progressives, including a dwindling band of Israel supporters, confused, bleating about war-powers resolutions that were deemed unnecessary when the Obama administration began bombing Libya. We live in a dangerous world, and one that is going to get more so—and indeed, in other respects worsened by the president's policies. But Trump got this one right, doing what his predecessors lacked the intestinal fortitude (or, to be fair, the promising opportunity) to do. He spoke with the brutal clarity needed in dealing with a cruel and dangerous regime. The world is a better place for this action and I, for one, applaud him for it. Article originally published at The Atlantic
