Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
The missile, which is created to replace the "Satan" is being tested
+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
George1- Posts : 18315
Points : 18812
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
George1- Posts : 18315
Points : 18812
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
Russia creating super heavy Sarmat ICBM without cooperation with Ukraine — commander
“As for using the potential of the Ukrainian defense sector, there is no need in it today,” Commander of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces Colonel General Sergey Karakayev said
VLASIKHA, December 16. /TASS/. Russia is developing the Sarmat super heavy liquid-propelled intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on its own without cooperation with Ukraine’s defense enterprises, as there is no need in it, Commander of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces (RSMF) Colonel General Sergey Karakayev said on Tuesday.
“As for using the potential of the Ukrainian defense sector, there is no need in it today,” he said, adding that since 1993 all missiles for RSMF have been developed only by Russian enterprises, and the country’s industry has mastered the liquid-propellant technology since the Soviet period.
“One of the main enterprises developing liquid-propelled missiles now is the Academician V.P. Makeyev State Rocket Center. Thanks to the high scientific-technical and industrial potential, it has won a tender for the state order placement that also involved other Russian enterprises, in particular, the Reutov-based VPK NPO Mashinostroyeniya rocket design bureau,” the commander told reporters on the eve of the 55th anniversary of RVSN creation.
According to Karakayev, the Makeyev State Rocket Center “has drawn together cooperation ensuring closed-cycle design, development and serial production of missiles and sea-launched missile systems. Specialists of the enterprises have carried out major preparatory work, in particular, for the study of the experience of the creation of the Voivode class missiles (NATO’s reporting name Satan).”
“So, we have no doubt that the new heavy liquid-propelled missile will be created before the end of the current decade,” Karakayev said.
“As for using the potential of the Ukrainian defense sector, there is no need in it today,” Commander of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces Colonel General Sergey Karakayev said
VLASIKHA, December 16. /TASS/. Russia is developing the Sarmat super heavy liquid-propelled intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on its own without cooperation with Ukraine’s defense enterprises, as there is no need in it, Commander of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces (RSMF) Colonel General Sergey Karakayev said on Tuesday.
“As for using the potential of the Ukrainian defense sector, there is no need in it today,” he said, adding that since 1993 all missiles for RSMF have been developed only by Russian enterprises, and the country’s industry has mastered the liquid-propellant technology since the Soviet period.
“One of the main enterprises developing liquid-propelled missiles now is the Academician V.P. Makeyev State Rocket Center. Thanks to the high scientific-technical and industrial potential, it has won a tender for the state order placement that also involved other Russian enterprises, in particular, the Reutov-based VPK NPO Mashinostroyeniya rocket design bureau,” the commander told reporters on the eve of the 55th anniversary of RVSN creation.
According to Karakayev, the Makeyev State Rocket Center “has drawn together cooperation ensuring closed-cycle design, development and serial production of missiles and sea-launched missile systems. Specialists of the enterprises have carried out major preparatory work, in particular, for the study of the experience of the creation of the Voivode class missiles (NATO’s reporting name Satan).”
“So, we have no doubt that the new heavy liquid-propelled missile will be created before the end of the current decade,” Karakayev said.
George1- Posts : 18315
Points : 18812
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
Sarmat deployment plans
The Russian media quote an unnamed defense industry source as saying that the Sarmat heavy ICBM will be eventually be deployed with two divisions - in Dombarovskiy and Uzhur. it is expected that the total of seven regiments with 46 missiles will be deployed (six missiles in a regiment plus one ten-missile regiment). The flight tests of the missile are not expected to begin before 2017 (so, the earlier report about the missile making an appearance in 2015 probably meant something else).
This is hardly surprising - only these two divisions have silos that are large enough to accommodate a large missile (although it's quite possible that the SS-19/SS-24 silos would have worked as well - Sarmat appears to be in the SS-19 rather than in SS-18 category). Together with the report about projected deployment of 30 rail-mobile missiles of the Barguzin system, the news about Sarmat shows that the concept of economies of scale generally eludes the Russian government - whatever are the alleged advantages of the new missile, it's hard to justify the development cost if you end up deploying only 46 of them. Yes, the Untied States ended up deploying 50 MX in silos in the 1980s, but the initial goal of the Peacekeeper program was 310 missiles. Sarmat probably won't end costing its weight in gold, but it will be an expensive missile.
http://russianforces.org/blog/2014/12/sarmat_deployment_plans.shtml
The Russian media quote an unnamed defense industry source as saying that the Sarmat heavy ICBM will be eventually be deployed with two divisions - in Dombarovskiy and Uzhur. it is expected that the total of seven regiments with 46 missiles will be deployed (six missiles in a regiment plus one ten-missile regiment). The flight tests of the missile are not expected to begin before 2017 (so, the earlier report about the missile making an appearance in 2015 probably meant something else).
This is hardly surprising - only these two divisions have silos that are large enough to accommodate a large missile (although it's quite possible that the SS-19/SS-24 silos would have worked as well - Sarmat appears to be in the SS-19 rather than in SS-18 category). Together with the report about projected deployment of 30 rail-mobile missiles of the Barguzin system, the news about Sarmat shows that the concept of economies of scale generally eludes the Russian government - whatever are the alleged advantages of the new missile, it's hard to justify the development cost if you end up deploying only 46 of them. Yes, the Untied States ended up deploying 50 MX in silos in the 1980s, but the initial goal of the Peacekeeper program was 310 missiles. Sarmat probably won't end costing its weight in gold, but it will be an expensive missile.
http://russianforces.org/blog/2014/12/sarmat_deployment_plans.shtml
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
Ohoho ... this must be Christmas presents from under the three
Borisov: heavy ICBMs "Sarmatian" can deliver the goods, weighing 10 tons
Borisov: heavy ICBMs "Sarmatian" can deliver the goods, weighing 10 tons
kvs- Posts : 15130
Points : 15267
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
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- Posts : 18315
Points : 18812
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
In 2015, the first tests of heavy ICBMs "Sarmatian" will be made
Rmf- Posts : 462
Points : 441
Join date : 2013-05-30
satan's throw weight is 8,2 tonns. they said sarmatian would be simmilar.
GarryB- Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
One official is claiming a 10 ton throw weight...
With more modern and lighter warheads that just means more jammers and decoys...
With more modern and lighter warheads that just means more jammers and decoys...
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
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...GarryB wrote:One official is claiming a 10 ton throw weight...
With more modern and lighter warheads that just means more jammers and decoys...
Rmf- Posts : 462
Points : 441
Join date : 2013-05-30
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.
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- Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
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.
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.
Rmf- Posts : 462
Points : 441
Join date : 2013-05-30
i belive proppelants are the same.
GarryB- Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I would hope that new propellants have been developed since the late 1960s when the SS-18 entered service...
Rmf- Posts : 462
Points : 441
Join date : 2013-05-30
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.
the infrastructure and production factories for hypergolic fuels are the same, which will speed up deployement and is cheapest option.
flamming_python- Posts : 8988
Points : 9050
Join date : 2012-01-30
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.
Eugenio Argentina likes this post
flamming_python- Posts : 8988
Points : 9050
Join date : 2012-01-30
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- Posts : 462
Points : 441
Join date : 2013-05-30
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- Posts : 462
Points : 441
Join date : 2013-05-30
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- Posts : 15130
Points : 15267
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
Don't forget improvements in the engines. This has nothing to do with the table of Mendeleev.
George1- Posts : 18315
Points : 18812
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
New Russian Heavy Ballistic Missile Sarmat to Be Test Launched in 2016-2017
GarryB- Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
chemistry and periodic table of elements didnt change.
No of course they haven't, but exactly which storable rocket fuel is shown on that table?
Liquid rocket fuel has gone through several evolutions in SLBMs, becoming more powerful, taking up less volume, and being more stable and less of a problem in a sea/salt water environment.
any link proof or something ,not that im sceptical but that would have been a big news in space community....
Why the space community?
An ICBM has to be fuelled and ready and could stand for years fully fuelled and ready to launch.
For space rockets for safety they are generally only fuelled just before launch.
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.
It doesn't have to be the same size... it can be much smaller and still use existing silos.
ss-18 was already top heavy weight ,now this will be even bigger...
Satan was 210 tons, Samariton will be half that weight and therefore presumably half the size too.
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.
Odds are any attack on Russian silos will result in impacts on or near empty silos.
Don't forget improvements in the engines. This has nothing to do with the table of Mendeleev.
new engine designs, new materials for engine designs, new composite materials for structure, new fuels will all contribute to making it lighter and faster and more powerful.
Rmf- Posts : 462
Points : 441
Join date : 2013-05-30
Satan was 210 tons, Samariton will be half that weight and therefore presumably half the size too.
i doubt it.
anyways many space rockets use storable propelants , there is nothing special there as military and civilian launchers are inter-mixed,3rd stages on many launchers were for most part modified satelite killers
GarryB- Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The Satan itself is a popular satellite launcher, but for raw power cryogenic fuels tend to offer more power... are much cheaper and non toxic...
but...
Errm... did you read the first post in this thread?
ie:
Still doubt it?
Normally newer weapons are lighter because they are more accurate so they can have much lighter payloads... like the S-300 with a 150kg warhead and the S-350 small missiles with 40kg payload. With a lighter payload everything can be made smaller and lighter which means speed and range is better.
In this case the payload is the same but with smaller and lighter components... the technology difference from the 1960s to now is enormous, but the payload weight as been kept and increased.
Of course if you look at the payloads of modern fighters and compared them with WWII bombers and the are similar...
but...
i doubt it.
Errm... did you read the first post in this thread?
ie:
Russia to build 100-ton ICBM to penetrate US missile defenses
Still doubt it?
Normally newer weapons are lighter because they are more accurate so they can have much lighter payloads... like the S-300 with a 150kg warhead and the S-350 small missiles with 40kg payload. With a lighter payload everything can be made smaller and lighter which means speed and range is better.
In this case the payload is the same but with smaller and lighter components... the technology difference from the 1960s to now is enormous, but the payload weight as been kept and increased.
Of course if you look at the payloads of modern fighters and compared them with WWII bombers and the are similar...
Stealthflanker- Posts : 1410
Points : 1486
Join date : 2009-08-04
Age : 36
Location : Indonesia
I'm curious on "hardening" feature for this ICBM's. I wonder what Russians put to make this monster survive intercepts in Boost, midcourse and terminal.
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
Nice 
Named the starting date of a strategic missile tests "Sarmat"
Named the starting date of a strategic missile tests "Sarmat"
|
|
|