Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Share
    avatar
    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 425
    Points : 491
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  jhelb on Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:27 am

    zg18 wrote:

    Unfortunately no.

    Ok. Are there any specs available about the Project 4202 warhead? IOW, how is it different from the other warheads in other Russian ICBMs and SLBMs?

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4209
    Points : 4266
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  JohninMK on Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:40 am

    jhelb wrote:
    zg18 wrote:

    Unfortunately no.

    Ok. Are there any specs available about the  Project 4202 warhead? IOW, how is it different from the other warheads in other Russian ICBMs and SLBMs?

    Try http://www.russiadefence.net/t5225-russian-hypersonic-vehicle-object-4202 Very Happy

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3417
    Points : 3535
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Vann7 on Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:01 am



    how much power have the Sarmatian missile and compares with the previous
    Satan missile in terms of Megatons?
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16054
    Points : 16685
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:28 am

    The power of a nuclear weapon suffers from the law of diminished returns...

    Making a bomb twice as powerful does not make it twice as destructive or twice as capable.

    In fact three smaller bombs can be rather more destructive than one big one.

    The whole concept behind cluster bombs is a case in point... a 500kg HE bomb is a powerful weapon but in terms of lethality having 500 1kg bombs to spread around the damage is vastly more effective.

    The only exception is against hard targets where the bigger bomb the better.

    The simple fact is that if you want to destroy an enemy civilian population and infrastructure then larger numbers of smaller bombs is more effective than fewer bigger ones.

    The other key ingredient is accuracy... a WWII bomb attack requires thousands of bomber aircraft dropping 10s of thousands of small bombs to ensure a target is hit and destroyed. A modern cruise missile with terminal guidance can do with a much smaller bomb what would take a whole air force of bombers took in the 1940s.

    A 1980s Soviet cruise missile with a CEP of 250m (which is vastly better than any WWII bomber except dive bombers) still required a nuclear warhead to be effective... today the accuracy is down to less than 10m so conventional warheads are now effective.

    Improvements in accuracy of strategic missiles means much smaller warheads are actually more effective than previous bigger warheads for most roles.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 425
    Points : 491
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  jhelb on Tue Nov 15, 2016 9:27 am

    GarryB wrote:The power of a nuclear weapon suffers from the law of diminished returns...

    Making a bomb twice as powerful does not make it twice as destructive or twice as capable.

    Why not? A bomb twice as powerful will have twice the destructive power. Case in point the Tsar bomb can cause 10x time more destruction than the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima.


    GarryB wrote:The whole concept behind cluster bombs is a case in point... a 500kg HE bomb is a powerful weapon but in terms of lethality having 500 1kg bombs to spread around the damage is vastly more effective.

    How exactly will you drop 500 1kg bombs? You will need a few dozen aircraft. Cost of such an operation will go through the roof. Its effective but highly inefficient.

    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2929
    Points : 3056
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  kvs on Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:34 pm

    Diminishing returns only in the sense that the target cannot be destroyed to an arbitrary degree. If a 100 kiloton nuke is good
    enough to do it in, then there is no point using a 1 Megaton nuke.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza
    Senior Lieutenant
    Senior Lieutenant

    Posts : 664
    Points : 686
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Big_Gazza on Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:48 pm

    jhelb wrote:
    Why not? A bomb twice as powerful will have twice the destructive power. Case in point the Tsar bomb can cause 10x time more destruction than the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima.

    The "Tsar" bomb was designed to have a 100MT yield, but was only tested at ~50%. The "Little Boy" bomb dropped on Hiroshima was only 15kT, so the "Tsar" released ~3,3000x more energy. While the "Tsar" destruction footprint was immense, it wasn't 3300x greater than Hiroshima....
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16054
    Points : 16685
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:33 am

    Why not? A bomb twice as powerful will have twice the destructive power. Case in point the Tsar bomb can cause 10x time more destruction than the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima.

    Let me explain.

    Think of a 1 Megaton bomb.

    It is going to destroy most cities... especially on flat land.

    Lets say a 1 MT bomb totally destroys all buildings and surface structures out to 5km and basically kills most people within 20km of the centre of the blast instantly.

    A 10MT bomb will not destroy all buildings to 50km and kill most people within 200km.

    In fact three 150KT bombs evenly spaced out might actually kill more people than the 1MT bomb if the city is a large one.

    The more powerful the bomb the greater the destruction in the centre but the destruction does not spread very efficiently.

    Using the cluster bomb analogy a 500kg bomb will kill very effectively anyone on the surface unprotected within 50m of the impact point, but at 200m someone might survive.

    Break the bomb up into submunitions and spread them out evenly and you can cover a much larger area with lethal fragments.

    It is cheaper and more efficient to make and deliver a few hundred 150KT bombs than a dozen 10MT bombs...

    How exactly will you drop 500 1kg bombs? You will need a few dozen aircraft. Cost of such an operation will go through the roof. Its effective but highly inefficient.

    Inside a cluster bomb.

    Diminishing returns only in the sense that the target cannot be destroyed to an arbitrary degree. If a 100 kiloton nuke is good
    enough to do it in, then there is no point using a 1 Megaton nuke.

    Using 3 or 4 100KT bombs instead of one bomb in the megaton range can actually be rather more effective against area targets that are spread out, or are blocked by hills or natural features.

    The "Tsar" bomb was designed to have a 100MT yield, but was only tested at ~50%. The "Little Boy" bomb dropped on Hiroshima was only 15kT, so the "Tsar" released ~3,3000x more energy. While the "Tsar" destruction footprint was immense, it wasn't 3300x greater than Hiroshima....

    And the much greater power of the Tsar bomb would be wasted in heating the ground on the point of impact to a higher temperature and the blast wave will be much more destructive, but out to 5km or so both will be totally lethal...


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 425
    Points : 491
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  jhelb on Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:44 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:  While the "Tsar" destruction footprint was immense, it wasn't 3300x greater than Hiroshima....

    Why not? If it has 3300x more the energy than the Hiroshima bomb obviously it is going to cause that much more destruction than the Hiroshima bomb.Check the link below that I have posted, you can select a city, a nuclear device and see for yourself that destruction is directly related to the yield.

    http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    GarryB wrote:
    The more powerful the bomb the greater the destruction in the centre but the destruction does not spread very efficiently.

    Again Garry, I don't know why you have said that more powerful nukes will not spread the destruction effectively.Take a look at this link. You can choose the yield of a nuke and a city of your choice. You will notice that the greater the power of the nuke more the destruction that it causes.

    http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    This explains why modern day nuclear weapons have much greater explosive power than First and Second gen nuclear weapons and would greatly increase the scale of the devastation because of enhanced blast radius, thermal radiation, and prompt ionizing radiation that will cause significant destruction within seconds or minutes of a nuclear detonation.

    http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects2.shtml
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 404
    Points : 406
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:02 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    And the much greater power of the Tsar bomb would be wasted in heating the ground on the point of impact to a higher temperature and the blast wave will be much more destructive, but out to 5km or so both will be totally lethal...


    The most expensive part of the nuk is the pu239 pit and the detonators, means one 50 MT bomb waaay cheaper than 50 1MT bomb ,and the price of the 50MT bomb will be maybe twice as much as the 1 MT bomb.


    However the weight will increase as well, and the other expensive part is the ICBM.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16054
    Points : 16685
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:36 am

    Again Garry, I don't know why you have said that more powerful nukes will not spread the destruction effectively.Take a look at this link. You can choose the yield of a nuke and a city of your choice. You will notice that the greater the power of the nuke more the destruction that it causes.

    Thanks for that tool...

    Look at this:



    One ten Megaton explosion and three 1.2 Megaton explosions.

    The ten Megaton explosion appears to cover a much bigger area, but the effect of three 1.2 MT explosions would actually be greater because it would be spread over a much larger area, plus the factor that three separate explosions means colliding shockwaves from different directions which would have more sheer damage effect... the centre of the three explosions would have the combined force of the shockwaves from all three explosions and so the centre would be devastated despite consisting of 3.6MT of force instead of 10.4 MTs like the bigger weapon.

    This image is generated with a flat target area... the multiple explosions are even more effective in hilly terrain because the shockwaves of three explosions reach places one shockwave from one explosion can't reach.

    Think in terms of bullets... once the bullet is powerful enough to kill making it bigger just makes a bigger mess and is a waste of energy.

    Just look at what those rings actually represent... the really big rings are the thermal burns rings which are much bigger for the more powerful nuke but the grey ring showing blast radius... the rings are not that much different in size from the much smaller weapons.


    Last edited by GarryB on Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:40 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Add picture)


    _________________
    “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

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3417
    Points : 3535
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Vann7 on Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:38 am

    I asked the question because Russia apparently is saying that their Sarmatian Nuclear
    Bomb will have enough power to destroy UK ,France or a state of the size of texas
    Just ONE of them. Shocked


    Russia's New ICBM Sarmat Can Wipe Out Texas



    So my questions are ..
    1)how many megatons have in full the Sarmatian bomb?
    if all the power was focused in just one warhead?


    2)how it will work for a sarmatian bomb to wipe out a country of the size
    of all France or State like Texas?  Thats huge territory.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza
    Senior Lieutenant
    Senior Lieutenant

    Posts : 664
    Points : 686
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:47 am

    Meh.... Sarmat wiping out Texas?  Sounds like hyperventilating media idiots to me.  Russian journalists can be just as brain-dead as their scumbag liar Western corporate counterparts, so I wouldn't get hung up over such sensationalist reporting.  I expect that Sarmat will be deployed with numerous weapon loads, eg Type 1 - 20x MIRVs of 100kT each,  Type 2 - 10x MIRVs of 300kT each,  Type 3 - 5x MIRVs of 5 MT each, Type 4 - 3x HGVs of 1MT ea

    Type 1 is used to devastate large areas such as cities and industrial zones,  Type 4 is used to take out heavily defended and high value hardened targets.

    These loadouts are PURE CONJECTURE, but you get the idea.
    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2929
    Points : 3056
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  kvs on Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:42 am

    Sputnik is the former English RIAN.  It is staffed by 5th column clowns who spout all sorts of drivel that 1) reinforces NATO narratives
    (e.g. "pro Kremlin parties" used to describe all real political parties in Russia) and 2) makes Russia look like primitives (e.g. the above
    noted claim).

    Here is the problem in terms of geometry.   Say you wanted a nuke that could wipe out Texas.  A nuclear bomb produces a sphere
    of plasma when it detonates.   This sphere becomes the characteristic mushroom cloud thanks to thermal uplift and mass flow to
    restore the initial blast cavitation.

    To have such a plasma sphere glass Texas requires it to cover a good chunk of territory of Texas.   The problem is that while the circular
    intersection area basically scales as the square of the radius of the plasma sphere, the volume of the plasma sphere scales as the cube
    of the radius.   So the "glassing" efficiency of a nuclear detonation decreases as the inverse of the desired blast radius.   As discussed
    already a 50 megaton nuke is not 50 times more potent than a 1 megaton nuke in terms of damage and this is the reason.   So some MIRVed
    ICBM like the Sarmat can take out a dozen targets (e.g. cities) but it cannot glass an area the size of Texas.  For that you would need
    thousands and thousands of warheads literally raining over the territory.   Thanks to the START arms limitations rounds no country has such
    a collection of warheads and missiles needed to deliver them.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16054
    Points : 16685
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:17 am

    With the new compact warhead designs of 175KT you could probably manage about 20 in Sarmat... with the limitation of volume rather than throw weight.

    In terms of destruction with 3 warheads hitting London it would be largely destroyed... add another two nukes for each other major population centre in England and you could probably reasonably expect the country to cease to function for quite some time....

    The west is very urbanised and that makes it much easier to target and kill large numbers of people...

    They could easily lace a few of the decoys with Ebola for good measure so when they land they spread disease... I doubt the health system could cope...


    _________________
    “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

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3417
    Points : 3535
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Vann7 on Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:27 pm


    Wikipedia in English says Sarmata missile is 50 megaton.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat


    Are there any official numbers for the nuclear charge of the Sarma missile?
    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2929
    Points : 3056
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  kvs on Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:11 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    Wikipedia in English says Sarmata missile is 50 megaton.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat


    Are there any official numbers for the nuclear charge of the Sarma missile?

    From the link:

    10-24 MIRVs[1] (various type and yield; At the maximum reported throw-weight of up 10,000kg, the missile could deliver a 50 Mt charge (the maximum theoretical yield-to-weight ratio is about 6 megatons of TNT per metric ton, and the maximum achieved ratio was apparently 5.2 megatons of TNT per metric ton in B/Mk-41).

    The combined payload is up to 50 Mt or 2.5 to 5 Mt per warhead. The only configuration that makes sense is a large number of warheads in the 1 Mt range.
    A 2.5 Mt warhead is not efficient since most of the energy goes into forming a large mushroom cloud and not surface demolition.
    avatar
    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2248
    Points : 2286
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  franco on Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:43 pm

    My understanding was that the Sarmatian will be carrying 10-12 "object 4202". Not so?
    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2929
    Points : 3056
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  kvs on Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:17 pm

    franco wrote:My understanding was that the Sarmatian will be carrying 10-12 "object 4202". Not so?

    Sounds right. The focus will be on the gliders and not on megatons per warhead.
    avatar
    miketheterrible
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 851
    Points : 853
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  miketheterrible on Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:47 am

    Facility where they make the missile completed upgrade of the factory.


    Arrow
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 144
    Points : 144
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Arrow on Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:03 pm

    Sarmat will be vurnerable to boost phase interception. This missile use liquid fuel and has longer boost phase than modern solid propellant ICBM and SLBM. Event China new heavy ICBM DF-41 use solid propellant.
    avatar
    miketheterrible
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 851
    Points : 853
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:25 pm

    Arrow wrote:Sarmat will be vurnerable to boost phase interception. This missile use liquid fuel and has longer boost phase than modern solid propellant ICBM and SLBM. Event China new heavy ICBM DF-41 use solid propellant.

    not the same.

    Rubehz will be solid. Topol m and yars is too.

    Arrow
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 144
    Points : 144
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Arrow on Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:38 pm

    Rubehz will be solid. Topol m and yars is too. wrote:

    This is lightweight ICBM. Yars has throw weight only 1200 kg!
    avatar
    miketheterrible
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 851
    Points : 853
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:45 pm

    General speed of sarmat is fine. I'm pretty sure specialists are more knowledgeable of what the threats are. Not you or I. Hence why they are putting emphasis on this system.

    And for being lightweight, yars and topol m sure pack a mean punch.

    Arrow
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 144
    Points : 144
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Arrow on Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:07 pm

    Russia develop liquid fuel ICBM becouse has a problem with technology for solid heavy ICBM? Sarmat will be cheaper and quickly come to be armed.

    Sponsored content

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:05 pm