Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Share

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:06 am

    Safer? ICBM's aren't carrying people, they don't need to even be reliable as long as they have payload protection and large quantities of rockets. There is a reason most modern day ICBM's are solid-fueled.

     - Very true and asking is never a bad thing. Imagination powers the modern world and I respect you for having one.

     - Ugh... This ain't the best place to say it but I ought to congratulate Vlad on the ever increasing number of forumers.


    Last edited by Mike E on Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:10 am; edited 2 times in total

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:08 am

    Mike E wrote:Safer? ICBM's aren't carrying people, they don't need to even be reliable as long as they have payload protection and large quantities of rockets. There is a reason most modern day ICBM's are solid-fueled.

     - Very true and asking is never a bad thing. Imagination powers the modern world and I respect you for having one.
    well safer for what they carry inside

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:25 pm

    To Victor; Why not just use boosters instead of external tanks?

    ICBM's need to be as thin as possible, the wider they are the harder they are to carry, launch, and build silos for.

    Actually the US and Soviet space shuttles are good examples to examine in this regard.

    The US Space Shuttle is pretty much the equivalent of a C-130 with an enormous belly fuel tank and two large solid rocket boosters to get it moving.

    The main engines are in the shuttle and to keep the size of the shuttle small it has an enormous external fuel tank. The problem is that the main engines are not powerful enough on their own to get the shuttle moving so two very powerful solid rocket boosters are fitted to get the whole craft moving.

    The Soviet Buran is actually a glider that sits on a powerful rocket that takes it into space.

    the different approaches result in different advantages and disadvantages.

    the US shuttle takes its powerful engines into space and brings them back... they weigh about 10 tons. This reduces the max payload and acts as dead weight for the period after entering orbit until they are used to deorbit and also the flight back to earth.

    the Soviet Buran does not have those big powerful rockets so it can carry more payload.

    It also has the enormous advantage that you can take the Buran off the rocket and fit a payload with a fairing and launch that into space as one unit up to 120 tons.

    Why ask in the first place if you already know the idea is unpractical? Not that it isn't nice having a conversation...

    It is good he asked.... someone might have had a better solution, or another reason why it didn't make sense that he didn't know before.... Smile

    external tanks seems more safer.

    A rocket that size is a bomb... whether the fuel is external or internal... if it blows up then there is no safer.

    remember the Challenger failed because one of the o rings connecting the external fuel to the shuttle had frozen and failed... so it was not safer.

    There is a reason most modern day ICBM's are solid-fueled.

    In terms of safety rocket fuel is rocket fuel... solid rocket fuels are not safer than storable liquids in terms of ICBMs... and liquid fuels are more powerful.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:08 am

    GarryB wrote:
    There is a reason most modern day ICBM's are solid-fueled.

    In terms of safety rocket fuel is rocket fuel... solid rocket fuels are not safer than storable liquids in terms of ICBMs... and liquid fuels are more powerful.

    I never implied they were safer, just that they are cheaper,

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 11, 2015 3:47 am

    They are generally not cheaper either.. they are simpler as there are no turbopumps to move fuel or pipes and separated tanks to keep volatile chemicals apart.

    the solid rocket boosters of the Space Shuttle are much more expensive than the fuel stored in the very large tank.

    the reason for external tanks and boosters however is clear with the space shuttle... how much bigger and draggier would it be if all that was internal...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Mike E on Sun Jan 11, 2015 8:20 am

    GarryB wrote:They are generally not cheaper either.. they are simpler as there are no turbopumps to move fuel or pipes and separated tanks to keep volatile chemicals apart.

    the solid rocket boosters of the Space Shuttle are much more expensive than the fuel stored in the very large tank.

    the reason for external tanks and boosters however is clear with the space shuttle... how much bigger and draggier would it be if all that was internal...
    Wow I must be putting this all wrong.............  Embarassed

    Simpler* is what I really intended to say

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 373
    Points : 368
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Rmf on Sun Jan 11, 2015 12:16 pm

    people forget, but only some tubing and relatively small pressure chamber of the liquid fuel engine has to whitstand high pressures, unlike solid fuel where whole casing has to be strong and thick to resist pressure- whole rocket is pressure chamber.
    - the reason there is none solid fuel orbital rockets.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:47 am

    actually with solid fuel rockets if designed properly can be thin walled lightweights.

    the secret is to make the fuel burn from the centre outward rather than from one end to the other like a firework skyrocket. this means that the heat and pressure from the burning fuel in the centre is supported by the remaining fuel and the light outer shell...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Mike E on Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:01 pm

    GarryB wrote:actually with solid fuel rockets if designed properly can be thin walled lightweights.

    the secret is to make the fuel burn from the centre outward rather than from one end to the other like a firework skyrocket. this means that the heat and pressure from the burning fuel in the centre is supported by the remaining fuel and the light outer shell...
    True, though that doesn't mean they won't stress under enough pressure (cough, Space Shuttle, cough).

    The reason they aren't super popular is their weight. - ESA's newest rocket will be primarily solid-based, so it will be interesting to see how that works out.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5627
    Points : 6280
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Viktor on Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:04 am

    Ohoho ... this must be Christmas presents from under the three

    Borisov: heavy ICBMs "Sarmatian" can deliver the goods, weighing 10 tons

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2500
    Points : 2633
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  kvs on Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:34 am

    Viktor wrote:Ohoho ... this must be Christmas presents from under the three

    Borisov: heavy ICBMs "Sarmatian" can deliver the goods, weighing 10 tons

    So it is actually more powerful than the R-36M (SS-18). It is indeed a Christmas present. I kept hearing that the Sarmatian was going
    to have a smaller throw weight than the "Satan".

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  George1 on Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:10 am

    In 2015, the first tests of heavy ICBMs "Sarmatian" will be made

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 373
    Points : 368
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Rmf on Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:30 pm

    satan's throw weight is 8,2 tonns. they said sarmatian would be simmilar.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:03 am

    One official is claiming a 10 ton throw weight...

    With more modern and lighter warheads that just means more jammers and decoys...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Mike E on Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:14 am

    GarryB wrote:One official is claiming a 10 ton throw weight...

    With more modern and lighter warheads that just means more jammers and decoys...
    Yeah... That would be pretty nice not gonna lie. To put this 10 t figure into perspective, the Minuteman iii has a throw of just over 1 ton, meaning this will have roughly the throw of 10(!) Minutemans!!! That's really gonna make our politicians wet themselves, just a little bit...

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 373
    Points : 368
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Rmf on Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:06 pm

    that would seem like an overkill and waste of resourses/ money. which could be used better for other weapons programs.
    probably same components like in ss-18 with some modifications (lighter components) and improvements (digital electronics etc..) that in the end resulted in increase in throw weight.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:47 am

    Also likely more powerful propellents too.

    there is no such thing as too much throw weight, though developing a missile with too much throw weight is a bit of a waste.

    The facts of the matter are that the more warheads a missile carries the cheaper your missile forces become because one missile carrying 10 warheads is going to be cheaper to buy and own than ten missiles with one warhead each.

    The problem with the big missiles is that the enemy have ten times less missiles to target in a first strike scenario, but high energy propellents and lighter missiles will accelerate faster and create such a small targeting window that it becomes irrelevant and once in space decoys and jammers can be deployed and with a ten ton payload it could conceivably carry thousands of decoys ready to inflate when released...

    Another advantage that most would not even think of is eventual disposal... a missile that can deliver 10 tons to orbit is a useful thing... rather more useful than a missile that can only carry 1 ton.

    the obvious advantage is that a new fairing over the nose and a few hundred micro satellites and a few satellites weighing a ton or more and you can make a lot of money disposing of the ICBM.

    Currently old ICBMs make a bit of cash doing just that.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 373
    Points : 368
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Rmf on Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:36 pm

    i belive proppelants are the same.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:46 am

    I would hope that new propellants have been developed since the late 1960s when the SS-18 entered service...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 373
    Points : 368
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Rmf on Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:22 pm

    chemistry and periodic table of elements didnt change.
    the infrastructure and production factories for hypergolic fuels are the same, which will speed up deployement and is cheapest option.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:24 pm

    Rmf wrote:that would seem like an overkill and waste of resourses/ money. which could be used better for other weapons programs.
    probably same components like in ss-18 with some modifications (lighter components) and improvements (digital electronics etc..) that in the end resulted in increase in throw weight.

    It's 50% of the Satan's weight while having, allegedly, 20% more throw weight.

    How is that supposed to be overkill or a waste?

    If those new.. well whatever the hell they're rumored to be building for the next generation of Russian ICBM payloads see the light of day - you can bet they'll be heavier than the current MIRV buses/reentry vehicles and thus that extra throw weight will be put to good use.
    Another thing is what GarryB said - the extra throw weight allows more decoys & countermeasures to be fitted - increasing the survivability and success rate of the actual warheads that are there.

    Yet another point is that the Sarmat is going to be in service for a long time; several decades until it's replaced. I think this point has been brought up here or in another thread already - namely that they're making the Sarmat not just for today's technologies, but for tomorrow's too. We might see high-powered ground lasers, connected to power grids, employed in the ABM role sooner or later. Thus having spare throw weight for some extra thermal shielding, particularly on the booster/fuel tanks and so on during the ascent - would be quite welcome.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:33 pm

    GarryB wrote:I would hope that new propellants have been developed since the late 1960s when the SS-18 entered service...

    I believe there was some kind of advance recently for liquid-fueled Russian rockets; a new propellant mixture.

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 373
    Points : 368
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Rmf on Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:37 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    GarryB wrote:I would hope that new propellants have been developed since the late 1960s when the SS-18 entered service...

    I believe there was some kind of advance recently for liquid-fueled Russian rockets; a new propellant mixture.

    any link proof or something ,not that im sceptical but that would have been a big news in space community....

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 373
    Points : 368
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Rmf on Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:41 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    Rmf wrote:that would seem like an overkill and waste of resourses/ money. which could be used better for other weapons programs.
    probably same components like in ss-18 with some modifications (lighter components) and improvements (digital electronics etc..) that in the end resulted in increase in throw weight.

    It's 50% of the Satan's weight while having, allegedly, 20% more throw weight.

    How is that supposed to be overkill or a waste?

    If those new.. well whatever the hell they're rumored to be building for the next generation of Russian ICBM payloads see the light of day - you can bet they'll be heavier than the current MIRV buses/reentry vehicles and thus that extra throw weight will be put to good use.
    Another thing is what GarryB said - the extra throw weight allows more decoys & countermeasures to be fitted - increasing the survivability and success rate of the actual warheads that are there.

    Yet another point is that the Sarmat is going to be in service for a long time; several decades until it's replaced. I think this point has been brought up here or in another thread already - namely that they're making the Sarmat not just for today's technologies, but for tomorrow's too. We might see high-powered ground lasers, connected to power grids, employed in the ABM role sooner or later. Thus having spare throw weight for some extra thermal shielding, particularly on the booster/fuel tanks and so on during the ascent - would be quite welcome.

    its about the silos ,sarmatian will use existing silos and so have same dimension as ss-18, which with improvements i mentioned increased throw weight.
    ss-18 was already top heavy weight ,now this will be even bigger...
    a bit smaller missile could have been used and stregtening of silos further thickening of roof and walls because of increased precision today of cruise and balistic missiles or rods-from-god type weapons (global prompt strike) which might offer first strike capability.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2500
    Points : 2633
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  kvs on Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:12 am

    Don't forget improvements in the engines. This has nothing to do with the table of Mendeleev.

    Sponsored content

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:01 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:01 pm