EVALUATIONS OF SOVIET SURFACE-TO-SURFACE MISSILE DEPLOYMENT 16TH REVISION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78T05439A000400380049-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: T
• Document Page Count: 86
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 27, 2005
• Sequence Number: 49
• Publication Date: January 1, 1965
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP78TO5439A000400380049-7
Next 5 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP78TO5439A000400380049-7
 Approved Fora
offignapMu$' f 0:9A
J106 Pages
EVALUATIONS SOV E
{ SU RFACE-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE DEPLOYMENT
16TH REVISION
A Report of the Deployment Working Group
of the
uided Missile and Astronautics Intelligence Committee
5X1
Declass Review by NGA.
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP78TO5439A000400380049-7
 TOP SECRET I I 2
1
7
EVALUATIONS OF SOVIET
SURFACE-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE DEPLOYMENT
16TH REVISION
A Report of the Deployment Working Group
of the
Guided Missile and Astronautics Intelligence Committee
t
t
1
A
I TOP SECRET
 TOP SECRET
The Guided Missile and Astronautics Intelligence C'om-
?mittee (GMAIC) a she- to expre-- its appreciation to the
National Photographic Interpretation Center for its assist-
ance in the editing, illustration, and publication of this
report.
A
i
TOP SECRET
 TO-P SECRET
GUIDED MISSILE ANDASTRONAUTICS 'TELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
25X1A
25X1A
1
Photozruphic Interpreter -upport i= pro%ided by the Photo-
graphic \nal.\-i- Group. NPIC.
NOTE: All corrc-pondenco rolati\o to thi- report -hould he directed to the
Chairman, Guided \Ii --ile and \-tronautic-Intelligoncc?('otnmittoe(G\t.-\IC).
TOP SECRET
 TOP SECRET
This report, published bimonthly by the G\1AIC Deployment Working
Group (D\%'G1, provides a comprehensive, ready-reference listing of all
ICB\1, IRB\1, and \IRB\1 deployment locations, types of site configura-
tions, photographic references, estimated construction and operational
status, and other evaluations by the DWG. These data constitute the
majority view of the DWG membership, and may not correspond pre-
cisely to individual assessments by each member. Additional data may
be added to future revisions. - -- -
Dissemination of the report was previously limited to holders of
the DWG report. Soviet Surface-to-Surface Missile Deployment. Because
the information contained herein is both supplemental and self-sustain-
ing. distribution will no longer be limited to holders of the above report.
TOP SECRET
 TOP SECRET
Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Sovi, ICBM Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Soviet IRBM/MRBM Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table 1. Summary of Estimated Status of Identified ICBM, IRBM, and MRBM
Launchers at Deployed Complexes . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 2. Summary Evaluation of Soviet ICBM Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Table 3. Summary Evaluation of Soviet IRBM Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Table 4. Summary Evaluation of Soviet MRBM Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Table 5. Summary Evaluation of Soviet Fixed Field Sites (SSM Fixed Field
Positions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Table 6. Composition of IRBM/MRBM Complexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
A
TOP SECRET
 TOP SECRET
I
Page
Figure 1. Deployment of Soviet ICBM Complexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2. Typical Configurations of ICBM Launch Sites, and Explanation of
Types ............... ........................ 4
Figure 3. Artist's Concept of Typical Single-Silo Launch.Site in Midstage
of Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 4. Schematic Layout of Launch Areas, Aleysk ICBM Complex . . . . . 13
Figure 5. Launch Site C(3), Aleysk ICBM Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 6. Schematic Layout of Launch Areas, Dombarovskiy ICBM
Complex ....................................... 15
Figure 7. Launch Site B(3), Dombarovskiy ICBM Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 8. Launch Sites A(1) - F(6) and Rail-to-Road Transfer Point,
Imeni Gastello ICBM Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 9. Schematic Layout of Launch Areas, Inzeni Gastello ICBM
Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 10. Launch Site D(4), Imeni Gastello ICBM Complex . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 11. Schematic Layout of Launch Areas, Uzhur ICBM Complex . . . . . 21
Figure 12. Launch Site B(2), Uzhur ICBM Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 13. Schematic Layout of Launch Areas,Zhangiz-Tobe ICBM
Complex ....... ............................... 23
Figure 14. Launch Site A(1), Zhangiz-Tobe ICBM Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 15. Launch Site D7(6), Launch Group D, Olovyannaya ICBM
Complex ....................................... 25
Figure 16. Probable Launch Sites D8, D9, and D10, Launch Group D.
Olov.yannaya ICBM Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 17. Cable Ditching, Launch Group D, Olovyannaya ICBM Complex . . . 26
Figure 18. Launch Site D2(2), Launch Group D, Olovyannaya ICBM
Complex ............................. ....... 27
Figure 19. Launch Site E(6), Gladkaya ICBM Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 20. Launch Site G(7), Svobodnyy ICBM Complex and Launch Site
K(10), Yurya ICBM Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 21. Launch Sites E(5) and F(6), Drovyanaya ICBM Complex . . . . . . . 29
Figure 22. Artist's Concept of Type IA ICBM Launch Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 23. Artist's Concept of Type IIA ICBM Launch Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 24. Pad Al(l), Tyuratam . . .. ... .... .. .. ......... . 32
Figure 25. Launch Site A3(1.5), Tyuratam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 26. Probable Erected Missile, Pad C1(3), Tyuratam . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 27. Launch Site D2(9), Tyuratam . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 28. Launch Complex L(6), Tyuratam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Figure 29. Launch Complex F(5), Tyuratam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
TOP SECRET
 TOP SECRET
ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
25X1 D
Page
Figure 30. Layout of Launch Complex F(5), Tyuratam . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 31. Launch Site GI/G2(7), Tyuratam. . . ,w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Figure 32. Layout of Launch Site G1/G2(7), Tyuratam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 33. Launch Site G3/G4(11), Tyuratam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Figure 34. Layout of Launch Site G3/G4(11), Tyuratam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Figure 35." Launch Site G5/G6(12), Tyuratam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 36. Launch Site G7(18), Tyuratam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Figure 37. Launch Site G8/G9(19), Tyuratam, in Mid (Top) and Late
(Bottom) Stages of Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Figure 38. Layout of Launch Site G8/G9(19), Tyuratam, in Mid(Top)
and Late (Bottom) Stages of Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 39. Cable Ditching, Launch Complex G, Tyuratam . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 & 47
Figure 40. Probable Cable Ditching Under Construction Between
Launch Site G7(18) and Launch Complex K(13), Tyuratam . . . . 48 & 49
Figure 41. Launch Complex H(8), Tyuratam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 42. Layout of Launch Complex H(8), Tyuratam . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 43. Artist's Concept of Launch Complex 1(14), Tyuratam . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 44. Launch Complex J, Tyuratam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 45. Launch Complex K(13), Tyuratam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J4
Figure 46. Artist's Concept of Launch Complex K(13), Tyuratam . . . . . . .. 55
Figure 47. Deployment of Soviet IRBM/MRBM Complexes . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Figure 48. Typical Configurations of IRBM/MRBM Launch Sites,
With Associated Missile Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59
Figure 49. Destroyed IRBM Launch Site, Bayram-Ali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 50. Dismantling of Barracks-type Buildings, Traktovyy
IRBM Launch Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 51. Dismantling of Barracks-type Buildings, Zhuravka
IRBM Launch Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Figure 52. Karakhobda IRBM Launch Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 53. Abandoned Novosysoyevka 3 IRBM Launch Site .. . . . . . . . . . _ . . 67
Figure 54. Taybola 3 IRBM Launch Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Figure 56. Zamshany Fixed Field Site, Brest MRBM Complex. . . . . . . . . . . 70
Figure 57. Rukuv Fixed Field Site, Dolina MRBM Complex . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70
Korosten MRBM Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Figure 59. Manzovka Fixed Field Site, Kremovo MRBM Complex. . . . . . . . . 71
Figure 60. Kobylnik Fixed Field Site, 'Postavy MRBM Complex . . . . ... . . . . 71
Figure 58. Yemilchino 1 and Yemilchino 2: Fixed Field Sites,
25X1 D
1
r
r
TOP SECRET
 TOP SECRET
ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
J
t
Page
Figure 61. Type IV IRBM/MRBM Launch Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 & 73
Figure 62. Plan View (Top) of Type IV Launch Silo, Paraul
IRBM Launch Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Figure 63. Plan View (Side) of Postulated Type IV IRBM
Launch Silo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Figure 64. Launch Area IC, Kapustin Yar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
TOP SECRET
 TOP SECRET
This report is the 16th Revision of Eval-
uations of Soviet Surface- to- Surface Missile
Deployment prepared by the Deployment Work-
ing Group (DWG) of the Guided Missile and
Astronautics Intelligence Committee (GMAIC).
While information contained in this and previous
revisions is self-sustaining, it serves to sup-
plement the basic DWG report Soviet Surface-
to-Surface Missile Deployment, v hich provides
detailed information on individual launch facil-
ities of the Soviet Strategic Rock? Forces.
The basic report, dated 1 January 1962 (Control
Number 1-14 0747-62KH), has been revised and
updated on a periodic basis. Further updating
is accomplished in reports prepared and pub-
lished for GNIAIC by the National Photographic
Interpretation Center.
15X1 D
previous missions and other sources have
provided additional information on the Soviet
strategic ballistic missile deployment program.
The new data are reflected in Table I and in
the estimated operational status shown in Tables
2, 3, and 4. Cutoff date for information con-
tained in this report is 20 December 1964.
Soviet ICBM deployment activity since the
15th Revision is highlighted by the apparent
completion of 6 Type ILIA sites and the aban-
donment of another, and the identification of'2
confirmed and 3 probable single-silo sites at
2 complexes. At the 1 yuratam Missile Test
Center, significant developmei.ts include the
completion of 3 launch sites and continued con-
struction activity at what now is assessed as a
probable launch facility at Complex J.
TOP SECRET
CURRENT DEPLOYMENT
The number of identified ICBM complexes
remains at 24, with the search for new single-
silo complexes on available photography nearing
completion. See .Figure 1 for locations of' de-
ployed ICBM complexes.
The 24 complexes now contain a total of
271 confirmed and probable launchers, of which
150 are soft and 121 are hard. Included in the
hard launchers are 40 single-silo configurations.
Additionally, we are carrying 1 more -single
silo in the possible category.
Of the 271 confirmed and probable launch-
ers, 215 are considered to be operational, in-
cluding 69 in a hard configuration. In addition,
we believe that 26 of the 35 confirmed launch-
ers at the I yuratam Missile Test Center, in-
eluding 9 hard, are operational.
The ICBM sites have been designated by
type as shown and explained in Figure 2. We
continue to be unable to determine with con-
fidence the missile system or systems associ-
ated with single-silo configurations identifiedat
Tyuratam and at deployed complexes. Neither
can we ascertain the final. configuration(s) for
these sites, nor for the new probable rail-
served soft sites at Plesetsk. Therefore, we
have not added diagrams of these sites to
Figure 2 and will continue to refer to them as
Type III (single) and Type 1B, respectively.
Evaluation of all evidence received since
our last revision has resulted in changes at
the following complexes:
ADDITIONS:
IMENI GASTELLO, Launch Site F(6),
Type III (single), under construction
OI_OVY:\NNAYA, -Launch Site D7(6), Type
III (single), under construction: Prob-
able Launch Sites D8, D9, and D10,
.Type III (single), under construction.
DELETIONS:
GLADKAYA, Launch Site E(6), Type ILIA,
abandoned.
 N N'FI)IN
-1
I N I. A N 1)~?
Jt.~.
Yedrovo Plesetsk
MOSCow
Kozelsk?
.Teykovo
? Kostroma
Yurya
?Verkhnyaya Saida
Dombarovskiy ? Kartaly
0 Omsk.
? Itatka
,Gladkaya
0 Uzhur
Imeni Gastello .
0 Novosibirsk
('--N?. Svobodnyy
rill
IIIIIRIF III N.
RI 1.1'RI 11 I'II
TCRKEY
TYURATAM Drovyanayai
? MISSILE ?Aleysk Olovyannaya?
TFCT rFNTFR I.~??.
r" b10NGOLIA
Zhangiz -Tobe
IRAN
d
AFGHANISTAN ='~'?~i
 TOP SECRET
25X1 D
A
r
I
t
SINGLE-SILO COMPLEXES
tion. Spoil from the excavation is arranged in
a neat flat-topped rectangle on I side and a
smaller flat-topped square on the opposite
2_r-,X 1 aide.
0
(excluding Launch Group D at the Olov-
yannaya Complex) now contain a total of 30
confirmed and probable silos in early and
midstages- of construction. Total silos within
the individual complexes range from a low of 2
(plus I possible) at Kartaty to a high of 6 at
Aleysk, Imeni Castello, and Uzhur.
Since the lath Revision, 4 of the 6 single-
silo complexes (Aleysk, Dombarovskiy, Imeni
Gastello, and Uzhur) have been covered by
usable photography. From this
and continuing analysis of previous coverage
of all 6 complexes, a general picture of the
Soviet construction program at these complexes
can be depicted. Construction is begun at I or
more launch sites at approximately the same
time that construction of the complex support
facility is initiated. No complex main road is
evident, although this feature may be added as
construction progresses. Instead, maximum
advantage is taken of existing roads and, where
these are lacking, it appears that equipment and
vehicles are moved cross-country without bene-
fit of any road preparation. These procedures
differ markedly from those observed at the 18
older ICB\1 complexes, where the complex sup-
port facility and a complex main road were
brought to a fairly advanced stage of construc-
tion before work on the launch areas .yas
initiated.
Construction techniques appear to be sin7i-
lar at those single-silo launch sites on which good
coverage has been obtained. A square excavation
served by 2 earth ramps appears to be the first
step in silo construction, followed by a silo
coring in the approximate center of the excava-
At Aleysk, the tops of these earth
mounds have been surfaced with what appears to
be concrete, suggesting that the earth mounding
provides a hardstand at a specific level, prob-
ably to facilitate future missile handling and
servicing. No evidence of construction under
the earth mounds has been detected. An artist's
concept of a typical single-silo launch site in
a midstage of construction is shown in Figure 3.
We have noted that certain launch sites at
3 of the complexes--Aleysk A(1) andC(3), Dom-
barovskiy B(3), and Imeni Gastello D(4)--have
security fences encompassing a much larger
area than those visible at other launch sites
within the same complexes. These large fenced
areas are similar in pattern to the fenced area
at Launch Complex 1(14) at Tyuratam, which
contains an L-shaped probable guidance facility
(interferometer) as well as a launch silo. While
no interferometer is yet visible at the deployed
sites, the fenced areas are large enough to con-
tain one. Furthermore, at Launch Site D(4) at
Imeni Gastello, an excavation is visible near the
silo in the same. relative position as a mounded
structure in the apex of the. "L" at Launch
Complex 1(14) at Tyuratam.
An analysis of the complexes at Aleysk,
Dombarovskiy, and Imeni Gastello suggests that
each may contain troikas of sites, i.e., groups of
3, although at this stage other possibilities also
exist. Such a grouping is reminiscent of Launch
Sites A3(15) and B2(16), and Launch Complex
1(14) at Tyuratam. The 3 sites at Tyuratam
are connected by what appear to be cable ditches
(see 15th Revision). This feature is not yet
evident at any of the 6 deployed single-silo
complexes.
TOP SECRET
 25X1 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP78TO5439A000400380049-7
Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP78TO5439A000400380049-7
 TOP SECRET
25X1 D
25X1 D
The Aleysk Complex was covered by Mis-
,25X1 D
a
25X1 D
25X1 D
25X1 D
25X1 D
t
I
25X1 D
but only the mission yielded
interpretable results. The complex consists
of a complex support facility, a possible rail-
to-road transfer point, and 6 single-silo launch
sites, all in a midstage of construction. The
entire complex is served by a network of un-
improved roads and trails. A schematic layout
of the complex is shown in Figure 4.
Construction of this complex was begun sub-
sequent to Mission Ini-
tial construction activity at the complex was
observed on
when Launch Site A(1) was identified. The
complex support facility, negated on
The 6 launch -sites are in a mi stage o
construction and are typical examples of the
construction techniques at single-silo com-
plexes. All 6 have square excavations con-
taining a silo under construction. Spoil from
the excavations has been placed on either side
of the silos, forming a rectangle on I side and
a square on the other. At 5 of the 6 sites,
the spoil piles appear to be level and surfaced
with concrete. All 6 launch sites are inclosed
by security fences. The fences at Launch
Sites A(l) and C(3) inclose a considerably
larger area than those at the other 4 sites,
suggesting space for an interferometer, al-
though none is evident at either site as yet.
Launch Site C(3) is.shown in Figure 5.
road transfer point, and 5 single-silo launch
t sites, each containing a silo under construction.
A schematic layout of this complex is depicted
in Figure 6.
The complex can be negated on Mission
although a survey
line for the rail spur was present at that
time. First evidence of construction activity was
25X1fl
observed on
when the complex support facility and Launch
Sites A(4) and B(3) were identified.
Launch Sites A(4), B(3), C(2), and D(1) are
in a midstage of construction; Launch Site E(6), 25X1
confirmed as a launch facilityoni
25X1
in remains in an early stage.
The construction techniques at all Slaunch sites
are characteristic of single-silo complexes.
Four of the launch sites, (all except Launch
Site L(6), are fenced; the secured area at Launch
Site B(3) is larger than the others and similar
in pattern to Launch Complex 1(14) at Tyura-
tam. Launch Site B(3) is shown in Figure 7.
Imeni Castello Complex (Figure 8), the most
recently identified of the 6 single-silo com-
plexes. Highlighted on this coverage is the
identification of Launch Site F(6), a single-
silo -facility in a midstage of construction.
Construction at the complex can first be
identified on Mission I I at
which time activity can be observed at the
complex support facility, the rail-to-road
transfer point, and Launch Areas C(3), D(4),
and E(5). Launch Sites A(1) and B(2) were not
covered on this mission, and were first observed
on Mission Launch Site
good-quality stereo coverage of the
The Dombarovskiy Complex is covered
by poor -quality stereo photography on Mission
I I the complex consists
of a complex support facility, a possible rail-to-
F{6) - is first
complex is shown in Figure 9.
25X1 D
25X1 a
? 25X1 11
25X1 P
25X1
TOP SECRET
 25X1 D
25X1 D
TOP SECRET
The complex is situated in an agricultural
area of relatively flat-to-gently. rolling terrain.
The various components of the complex are
connected by a network of previously existing
farm roads. No extensive road construction
or repair is evident. Some deviation from
existing roads has been necessary to reach
the various construction sites. This has been
accomplished with a minimum of new road sur-
facing, and often is no more than tracking
across open fields.
In general, construction techniques at the
launch sites conform to the pattern previously
described, although the rectangular and square
areas on either side of the silos are`'hot ap-
parent. Security fences can be observed around
4 of the launch sites, including that at Launch
Site D(4) whose sides average in excess of
1,600 feet (Figure 10). This site also contains
an excavation near the silo, in the same relative
position as the mounded structure at the apex of
the L-shaped probable guidance facility at
Launch Complex 1(14) at Tyuratam. Another
large fence around Launch Site C(3) predates
site construction and may not be significant.
Kartaly Complex
25X1 D
25X1 D
by l photography since Mission
in and available information %vas
presented in the 15th Revision. It consists
of a complex support facility and I confirmed, 1
probable, and I possible single-silo launch sites,
all in an early stage of construction. Construc-
tion at this complex was probably initiated after
Mission although only
the complex support facility and the confirmed
Launch Site B(2) can be negated on that
photography.
25X1 D
Uzhur Complex
Mission rovided
fair-quality coverage of the Uzhur Complex,
but interpretation was hindered considerably by
snow cover and low sun angle.
The complex consists of a complex support
facility, a rail-to-road transfer point, and 6
single-silo launch sites, all in a midstage of
construction. A schematic layout of the complex
is shown in Figure 11.
Construction activity at this complex can
first be identified on Mission
At that time the complex support
facility and Launch Sites B(2), D(4), and F(fr)
were visible. Because of cloud cover, negation
of the entire complex cannot be affirmed before
However, based on
construction timing, we believe that work at
this complex began in late
While construction techniques at this com-
plex generally parallel those at- the other 5
single-silo complexes, certain differences are
also apparent. Extensive effort has been made
to improve existing roads leading to several of
the construction areas. Additionally, because
of the nature of the terrain, the square and
rectangular areas on each side of the silos at
some of the sites have been prepared by cutting
into the sides of hills. The signature of these
sites, however, is comparable to those at the
other 5 complexes. Launch Site B(2) is shown
in Figure 12. . Q
25X1 D'
The Zhangiz-Tobe Complex is covered on
Mission but the small
scale and obliquity of the photography prevent
interpretative results that would add to otdr
knowledge of construction activity and site
TOP SECRET
I
 t
25X1 D
I
25X1 D
a
25X1 D
,25X1 D
I
25X1 D
e
t
TOP SECRET
signatures. A diagram of this complex, based
on previous coverage, is shown in Figure 13.
This complex, the first single-silo complex
to be identified, was first observed on Mission
when the complex
support facility and Launch Site A(1) were
visible. While lack of coverage precludes
negation prior to Mission
we believe, based on construction timing,
that work at this complex was initiated late in
port facility and 5 launch sites, all in a midstage
of construction.
The signature of the launch sites, character-
ized by a U-shaped area formed by a generally
square excavation serviced by 2 inclined earth
ramps, is similar to those at the other 5 com-
plexes. Launch Site A(1) is shown in f figure 14.
OLOVYANNAYA COMPLEX,
cludes a definitive assessment at this time,
but several general observations can be made.
It is apparent that the overall configuration of
the launch group and the method in which it
is being constructed differ considerably from the
configuration and construction techniques ob-
served at the other 6 single-silo complexes.
The silo excavations at Olovyannaya appear
circular rather than U-shaped, cover a smaller
area, and appear shallower. The silo structures
also appear to be round, while those at the
other complexes are square. Accurate mensural
data cannot be obtained fromavailable photog-
raphy, but it appears' that the silo corings and
silo apertures at tote Olovyannaya launch group
are somewhat smaller in diameter than those
at the newer complexes. In summary, it appears
possible that Launch Group D at Olovyannaya
will accommodate a different missile system
than will be employed at the other 6 complexes.
Lack of high-resolution coverage at