Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
That´s Avangard. Until now only the ejection of Sarmat from the silo and the engines of the first stage were tested, at least that was shown to us on some videos.
+59
Tolstoy
caveat emptor
limb
ALAMO
Scorpius
Gazputin
The-thing-next-door
mnrck
Podlodka77
Mir
lyle6
Russian_Patriot_
lancelot
thegopnik
dino00
owais.usmani
LMFS
Hole
mnztr
AlfaT8
AK-Rex
eehnie
miketheterrible
KomissarBojanchev
PapaDragon
franco
Singular_Transform
RTN
jhelb
zg18
archangelski
Benya
gaurav
Big_Gazza
Werewolf
JohninMK
Vann7
magnumcromagnon
Arrow
GunshipDemocracy
max steel
Stealthflanker
flamming_python
Mike E
Rmf
kvs
TheRealist
Firebird
Sujoy
George1
Lycz3
TR1
Mindstorm
IronsightSniper
Austin
coolieno99
GarryB
Viktor
Russian Patriot
63 posters
New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian
Hole- Posts : 10720
Points : 10698
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 47
Location : Scholzistan
thegopnik- Posts : 1715
Points : 1717
Join date : 2017-09-20
The sarmat never really struck my fancy as just being seen as a ICBM and nothing more other than rumors of 1st stage being detonation engine. I dont really have much attention to pay on this project other than the other nuclear weapons they are developing.
kvs- Posts : 15130
Points : 15267
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
Being able to hit the yanquis from the south by going over the south pole is not interesting?
Hmmm.
Hmmm.
GarryB, Big_Gazza, GunshipDemocracy, Hole and jon_deluxe like this post
Hole- Posts : 10720
Points : 10698
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 47
Location : Scholzistan
It means that the peace-loving human rights preachers have to spend another 500+ Billion on their missile defence systems to cover the full circle. 
GarryB, kvs and Kiko like this post
lyle6- Posts : 2186
Points : 2180
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
The thing about super-heavy ICBMs is pound-for-pound, they are cheapest way of delivering nuclear warheads and by far. If I'm looking to design a retaliatory arsenal against an unhinged lunatic that flushes arms control treaties like he does toilet paper its probably a good idea to have a lot of room to upscale the number of warheads on use. The only real disadvantage is the perceived vulnerability to counterforce strikes from the blue - but if you're already investing in a 360 degree early warning network of land and sat-based sensors to control the battlespace thousands of miles beyond your borders and the advanced automated command and control to make it all work the possibility of such disarming attacks becomes minimal if not impossible, and the super-heavy ICBM only becomes more attractive an option. If you consider that these missiles readily retire into launching commercial payloads into low orbit these missiles are essentially *free* - and not many people can say no to free.thegopnik wrote:The sarmat never really struck my fancy as just being seen as a ICBM and nothing more other than rumors of 1st stage being detonation engine. I dont really have much attention to pay on this project other than the other nuclear weapons they are developing.
kvs, Hole and jon_deluxe like this post
owais.usmani
owais.usmani- Posts : 1786
Points : 1782
Join date : 2019-03-27
Age : 37
Hole wrote:It means that the peace-loving human rights preachers have to spend another 500+ Billion on their missile defence systems to cover the full circle.
I believe the R-36M2 Voevoda always had the capability to go full south pole, its just that because of some treaties / agreements it was never programmed this way (or probably it was just Gorbachev).
The Sarmat is designed to do 100% what the Voevoda could do, and do some more. It would be lighter due to composites, a more powerful engine which both results in a larger throw weight, more accurate than Voevoda and most important of all, it would be 100% built inside Russia.
Last edited by owais.usmani on Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
GunshipDemocracy, Eugenio Argentina and Scorpius like this post
Hole- Posts : 10720
Points : 10698
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 47
Location : Scholzistan
Sarmat. Satan is the NATO name for the R-36M2.
owais.usmani- Posts : 1786
Points : 1782
Join date : 2019-03-27
Age : 37
Hole wrote:Sarmat. Satan is the NATO name for the R-36M2.
Yeah sorry, corrected.
Mir- Posts : 3127
Points : 3129
Join date : 2021-06-10
An interesting addition to the Sarmat is an old Soviet era project that just got a new life.
It's the Mozyr active defence complex (Kaz) that was developed back then for an additional protection to the missile silos and the mobile launchers of the Strategic Missile Forces.
Apparently this development ultimately lead to active protection systems like the Arena.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/mozyr-kaz.htm
(The complete article makes for very interesting reading.)
It's the Mozyr active defence complex (Kaz) that was developed back then for an additional protection to the missile silos and the mobile launchers of the Strategic Missile Forces.
Apparently this development ultimately lead to active protection systems like the Arena.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/mozyr-kaz.htm
(The complete article makes for very interesting reading.)
The principle of KAZ operation is based on the defeat of air targets by metal balls with a diameter of up to 30 millimeters at an altitude of up to six thousand meters. In early December 2012, the source of the newspaper "Izvestia" in the military department said that charges with 40 thousand attacking elements will be fired at the target with an initial speed of up to 1800 meters per second and create after the blast at a certain height an "iron cloud" capable of destroying any air target. Prospective complexes are planned to be used primarily to cover strategic objects: launch silos, command posts and communication centers.
The complex would be the last frontier of missile defense. It must destroy the objects that managed to break through the curtain of the existing anti-missile "Gazelle" and the prospetive S-500 "Prometheus." The KAZ includes radar detection and guidance systems, as well as special artillery units. KAZ is designed to cover point objects, such as missile launchers, command posts, communication nodes, and this differs from anti-missiles that cover the sky by sectors. The military expects that the complex will be able to destroy not only ballistic missiles, but also all types of modern precision weapons, including cruise missiles and GPS-corrected bombs.
flamming_python, dino00, Big_Gazza, kvs, thegopnik, Eugenio Argentina and lyle6 like this post
kvs- Posts : 15130
Points : 15267
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
In other words a real shield. Instead of bullet on bullet fantasy, use inertia to make the warhead defeat itself.
Mir likes this post
Hole- Posts : 10720
Points : 10698
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 47
Location : Scholzistan
Looks grim
Big_Gazza, kvs, zepia, GunshipDemocracy, thegopnik, Eugenio Argentina, lyle6 and like this post
kvs- Posts : 15130
Points : 15267
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
A modern version could achieve much more accurate shield interception. Both the tracking and delivery systems can be made
much faster and precise. A hypersonic ABM delivering a blast of ball bearings in close proximity to the warhead can be more
effective than a nuclear blast since the "cooking window" is small and the metal casing of a warhead is effective against electrical
effects. It is still prone to magnetic effects but they can use diamagnetic materials to reduce the impact.
Of course, if the nuke is close enough then it can melt the warhead, but I suspect the 1960s ABMs using nuke warheads
are not this effective. But nukes also cause damage to your own side from EMP and radiation. So using them is a desperation
move.
A cloud of ball bearings cannot be defeated in any practical way. Making the warhead much heavier and shielded
against impact is not really a solution since the size of the launchers explodes. The Americans don't even have new ICBMs.
much faster and precise. A hypersonic ABM delivering a blast of ball bearings in close proximity to the warhead can be more
effective than a nuclear blast since the "cooking window" is small and the metal casing of a warhead is effective against electrical
effects. It is still prone to magnetic effects but they can use diamagnetic materials to reduce the impact.
Of course, if the nuke is close enough then it can melt the warhead, but I suspect the 1960s ABMs using nuke warheads
are not this effective. But nukes also cause damage to your own side from EMP and radiation. So using them is a desperation
move.
A cloud of ball bearings cannot be defeated in any practical way. Making the warhead much heavier and shielded
against impact is not really a solution since the size of the launchers explodes. The Americans don't even have new ICBMs.
Big_Gazza, GunshipDemocracy and Mir like this post
GarryB- Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The strength of the soviet silos meant that a direct hit was needed to ensure it was effective so even if the defences hit the incoming missile 300m above the ground that would be good enough.
A direct hit does not need to obliterate the target... a nuclear warhead is relatively fragile and only the fission trigger might detonate if intercepted before detonation.
For a country like Iran defending bunkers from anti bunker weapons a system like TOR would be excellent in terms of hitting them at altitude and reducing their accuracy to the point where they are useless to defeat underground targets.
A direct hit does not need to obliterate the target... a nuclear warhead is relatively fragile and only the fission trigger might detonate if intercepted before detonation.
For a country like Iran defending bunkers from anti bunker weapons a system like TOR would be excellent in terms of hitting them at altitude and reducing their accuracy to the point where they are useless to defeat underground targets.
GunshipDemocracy likes this post
Hole- Posts : 10720
Points : 10698
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 47
Location : Scholzistan
GarryB, franco, kvs, PapaDragon and lancelot like this post
George1- Posts : 18315
Points : 18812
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
First Sarmat ICBM regiment to enter service in late 2022 — Missile Forces commander
https://tass.com/defense/1376805
https://tass.com/defense/1376805
GarryB, franco, dino00, Big_Gazza, kvs, zardof, Hole and Mir like this post
Arrow- Posts : 2719
Points : 2711
Join date : 2012-02-12
Further delays of the Sarmat program. The missile has not yet performed a single flight test.
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/13243575
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/13243575
Mir- Posts : 3127
Points : 3129
Join date : 2021-06-10
Arrow wrote:Further delays of the Sarmat program. The missile has not yet performed a single flight test.
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/13243575
According to the same source to date three ICBM launches have been carried out from the Plesetsk cosmodrome.
Also 2022 is just around the corner
GarryB likes this post
owais.usmani- Posts : 1786
Points : 1782
Join date : 2019-03-27
Age : 37
Mir wrote:Arrow wrote:Further delays of the Sarmat program. The missile has not yet performed a single flight test.
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/13243575
According to the same source to date three ICBM launches have been carried out from the Plesetsk cosmodrome.
Also 2022 is just around the corner
Three ejection tests.
Arrow- Posts : 2719
Points : 2711
Join date : 2012-02-12
Also 2022 is just around the corner wrote:
Flight tests were to take place in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and now in 2022 it is not known whether this will be the final date. Apparently, they have technical problems with this missile.
Mir- Posts : 3127
Points : 3129
Join date : 2021-06-10
The Baluva missile also proved troublesome in the beginning but in the end it was all good. Sarmat is a new development for Russia as a replacement for the Ukrainian produced R-36. You can expect development issues along the way but I am confident that the Sarmat will enter service by the end of 2022 or early 2023.
Big_Gazza and Broski like this post
Hole- Posts : 10720
Points : 10698
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 47
Location : Scholzistan
Has nothing to do with techical problems of the missile but the fact that they have to build production facilities for it. Sarmat is a new missile of a size that wasn´t produced there for a while. Every part is new.
Arrow- Posts : 2719
Points : 2711
Join date : 2012-02-12
I do not agree. If there were no technical problems, they would not have postponed the tests ten times in the last 4 years. Of course, technical problems with such complex projects are standard. However, the date 2022 for entering the Sarmatian service is nonsense.
Yes, but that already came out during flight tests. Component quality problem. Generally interesting, because Bulava was constructed by the design office of the ICBM manufacturer, while Sarmata was developed by the SLBM design office.The new super-heavy ICBM missile is quite a challenge, especially since they developed the R 36 or RT 23 in Ukraine.
The Baluva missile also proved troublesome in the beginning but in the end it was all good. wrote:
Yes, but that already came out during flight tests. Component quality problem. Generally interesting, because Bulava was constructed by the design office of the ICBM manufacturer, while Sarmata was developed by the SLBM design office.The new super-heavy ICBM missile is quite a challenge, especially since they developed the R 36 or RT 23 in Ukraine.
lancelot- Posts : 2694
Points : 2692
Join date : 2020-10-18
I doubt it will be that difficult for Russia to produce Sarmat given that it has recent experience with hypergolic rockets both in Proton-M and R-29RMU2 Layner.
Each RD-253 engine on the Proton has roughly the same power as the RD-250 engine pairs used in the R-36.
Each RD-253 engine on the Proton has roughly the same power as the RD-250 engine pairs used in the R-36.
owais.usmani- Posts : 1786
Points : 1782
Join date : 2019-03-27
Age : 37
dino00 likes this post
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-06
Well, better late than never. Oh well.
Mir likes this post
|
|
|