Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Share

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Mar 09, 2014 6:47 pm

    I think if the FOAB wouldn't weight 9-11 tones it would have been great as a warhead on iskanders with 44 kT and wouldn't even vialote any treaties, could be a great asset for ballistic missile purpose.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon Mar 10, 2014 8:03 am

    FOAB is overkill for anything that is not a mil. base or a small village  Sad . Besides focus now is on precision strikes- take out the mobile HQ/radio/ ammo/fuel/supply dump with a 500 pound bomb or a cruise missile, and you significantly degrade the fighting capability of an enemy.
    Tho FOAB is perfect for punitive strikes- wiping out entire swaths of opium/coca fields and training camps.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Mon Mar 10, 2014 8:57 am

    Werewolf wrote:I think if the FOAB wouldn't weight 9-11 tones it would have been great as a warhead on iskanders with 44 kT and wouldn't even vialote any treaties, could be a great asset for ballistic missile purpose.

    Maybe if they made a scaled up version of Iskander-M but with Topol/Yars-24's TEL and launching tube, and as you said could be very interesting in the short/theater range ballistic missile role and wouldn't be subject to the INF treaty! Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Austin on Sun Jun 01, 2014 6:48 am

    Russia’s promising ICBM can overcome any missile defence


    A promising heavy, liquid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) which is being developed in Russia is a unique weapon that can overcome any missile defence, Deputy Defence Minister Yuri Borisov said on Saturday.

    “This heavy missile is actually a unique weapon that the United States does not have,” he said live on radio station Russian News Service.

    “As for its payload capacity it can carry such anti-missile defence weapons and can have such a large energy reserve that it can fly over the North Pole and over the South Pole,” the deputy defence minister added.

    In his words, this military development will be equipped with “highly manoeuvrable warheads.” “This is a very serious weapon and they are seriously afraid of it,” Borisov stated.

    “Developments which Russian military enterprises are producing are not inferior in their characteristics [to foreign weapons]. Today we do not seek to contract projects that cede to foreign models, it is senseless,” the deputy defence minister stated.

    gaurav
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 309
    Points : 309
    Join date : 2013-02-19
    Age : 37
    Location : Blr

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  gaurav on Sun Jun 01, 2014 7:43 am

    GarryB wrote:
    A bit like the FOB system... or fractional orbital bombardment system... put a bomb in orbit... it will go around every 90 minutes... when it approaches the target area fire a rocket to decellerate the weapon out of orbit to fall on the target.

    For the enemy that bomb might have been up for years or days and disguised as a "failed" satellite. the only warning they will likely get is when it reenters so no time to do anything at all to stop it...

        I think Russia has such a project and might be the regiment is already operational.
      although we need to know those details but the news is very scarce (on these topics) and it is not in the media.
       I dont know which entrprises are involved in it.

    Austin wrote:
    As for its payload capacity it can carry such anti-missile defence weapons and can have such a large energy reserve that it can fly over the North Pole and over the South Pole,” the deputy defence minister added.

       Are they talking about some interceptors as payloads of these weaponsto knock out incoming Aegis interceptors..

      It is some what unclear (no clarifcation )on what exactly does this "anti-missile defence weapons" means..?  Question 

    Werewolf wrote:

    But this method is the only promising method to stay on the side of not nuked but polluded "winners" rather than die immidiatley vaporized.

         Yaah I agree.. but this kind of warfare should not be thought about.
         There might be some other way to jam the complete enemy radar network without explosions although we dont know about that

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:58 am

    I think if the FOAB wouldn't weight 9-11 tones it would have been great as a warhead on iskanders with 44 kT and wouldn't even vialote any treaties, could be a great asset for ballistic missile purpose.

    A couple of things... first of all FOAB is a 41 ton equivalent TNT payload, not 44 thousand tons.

    Second for long range ballistic missiles a conventional warhead is rather pointless... most standard HE expand at a rate of about 3-6km/s, but ICBMs come in rather faster than that, so you would get a better effect on target with a warhead filled with 7 tons of 10mm square cubes and a small bursting charge where the bursting charge breaks the warhead container and spreads the cubes a mili second before impact... the metal cubes moving at 7+km/s would be devastating.

    I think Russia has such a project and might be the regiment is already operational.

    No. They had a version of the SS-9 that could be used as an FOB system but withdrew it by agreement.

    Are they talking about some interceptors as payloads of these weaponsto knock out incoming Aegis interceptors..

    It is some what unclear (no clarifcation )on what exactly does this "anti-missile defence weapons" means..?

    I suspect it means it can carry warheads deliberately designed to destroy ABM bases that can be launched over the north or south pole at the targets.



    _________________
    “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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  George1 on Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:46 pm

    The missile, which is created to replace the "Satan" is being tested

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  George1 on Tue Dec 16, 2014 3:33 pm

    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.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  George1 on Sun Jan 04, 2015 7:46 pm

    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

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

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

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Mon Jan 05, 2015 3:01 pm

    Why there are just 3 stages on a rocket?

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3316
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Jan 05, 2015 4:19 pm

    victor1985 wrote:Why there are just 3 stages on a rocket?

    victor1985... you're not just here to troll us, are you?

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Mon Jan 05, 2015 6:21 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    victor1985 wrote:Why there are just 3 stages on a rocket?

    victor1985... you're not just here to troll us, are you?

    Why do you say that? He could genuinely be asking a question out of curiosity. To answer victor1985's question, I'm no expert on this subject but the reason for 3 stages relies primarily on performance/capability vs reliability/survivability and a general cost/benefit analysis.

    More stages to a ICBM rocket would increase both performance and capability, but at the cost of reliability and survivabilty. Reliability will be hit because more 'pieces' means more trouble and labor to solve the 'puzzle' if problems arise, and a general rule of thumb in the engineering sciences is that the more complex and engineered item is, the less reliable it generally tends to become.

    Survivability wise more stages means that greater likeliness that it will be left vulnerable of being taken out by a first strike or a counter strike because it usually means it'll take a ICBM rocket longer before its performing at full capacity. The current 3 stages is likely a compromise of performance/capability and reliability/survivability.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

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

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:33 pm

    Thanks i leanr from your post
    So as far i understand more stages mean more chances to be discover and also mean a complex machine. But those can be perfected?

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:07 pm

    victor1985 wrote:Thanks i leanr from your post
    So as far i understand more stages mean more chances to be discover and also mean a complex machine. But those can be perfected?

    More stages/complexity doesn't necessarily mean it won't be reliable, or that it'll be easily compromised by a first strike/counter strike, it just means that it's more likely to be. However the opposite could be true, depending on the ICBM, complexity and or more stages could mean the performance and capabilities could just easily outperform the negatives associated with more complexity/stages, though with complexity comes more issues of reliability. Take the Bulava SLBM, due it's complexity (also issues with the technical/engineering experience on behalf of the manufacturer never having worked with SLBM's prior) it came with issues of reliability. The issues have now been mostly (or possibly fully) addressed and will be good to go soon for mass production, and the Bulava's technical advancements will blow away all foreign analogues of SLBM's.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:23 am

    It is mostly a question of design... by weight the vast majority of the weight of an ICBM is fuel.

    If you just have one stage then the rocket engine has to carry the weight of the entire vehicle all the way to the target which reduces its performance.

    By using stages you reduce weight and drag by being able to drop stages at different points of the flight.

    A good comparison would be Hermes/SA-19 and Vikhr. the former is a two stage missile, while the latter is a single stage missile. the first has a powerful solid fuel rocket booster that burns for about 1.5km and then falls away accelerating the missile to about 1km/s after which the light slim missile coasts to the target.... much smaller and lighter than the original missile. In comparison the Vikhr gets to about 600m/s and ends up flying half the distance because it does not shed weight or reduce drag.

    Three stages has been found to be optimum for ICBMs and most are three stage weapons.


    _________________
    “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

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

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

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:41 am

    That is the reason i thinked too. So th# missile in flight consume fuel but not the tank that contain the fuel. Finally you will have at close of target a almost empty tank that ads weight to missile. And that weight is unnecesary. Someone thinked to vertical stages instead of horizontal ones? I think maibe this would be easyer. The only problem would be droping from missile. But could be more numerous stages.
    Sound stupid what ive said no?
    Mean the fuel to be put in short bars that be dropped one by one. But i think that would add extra weight.

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 381
    Points : 376
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Rmf on Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:59 pm

    victor1985 wrote:Why there are just 3 stages on a rocket?
    its physiscs momentum equasion and action-reaction,chemistry (fuels) and their exhaust speed,and mechanical problem -engines and nozzle efficiency.

    single stage to orbit is fine in lower gravity planets like mars or satelite moon.

    for earth gravity well ,best payload characteristic has 3-4 stages ,depending on orbit you want to reach.
    but 2 stage launchers are also used.

    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 Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:59 pm

    victor1985 wrote:That is the reason i thinked too.  So th# missile in flight consume fuel but not the tank that contain the fuel. Finally you will have at close of target a almost empty tank that ads weight to missile. And that weight is unnecesary. Someone thinked to vertical stages instead of horizontal ones? I think maibe this would be easyer. The only problem would be droping from missile. But could be more numerous stages.
    Sound stupid what ive said no?
    Mean the fuel to be put in short bars that be dropped one by one. But i think that would add extra weight.
    Trust me when I say you're not the first person to suggest this idea. It is called fuel staging and the idea is to lose the extra weight of fuel tanks ASAP. The SpaceX Falcon Heavy will employ this idea.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:01 am

    Think of it in terms of payload to range... if you make a big single rocket then you have one rocket engine powerful enough to get the entire vehicle all the way to the target, which burns a lot of fuel.

    Think of it as an expedition to the top of Mt Everest... you can each take a 20 ton back pack with everything you need, or you can take 1,000 people each with a 20kg back pack to drop off at various places along the route. Only between 2 and three people actually make it to the summit, but the work of all those hundreds if not thousands of people make it all possible.

    By having three stages you need one huge powerful engine that can move the entire vehicle and accelerate it upwards, then you need another much smaller engine to then accelerate the remaining two stages for a couple of minutes and then finally you have the last stage engine that basically carries the final payload to a location and speed where it can fall on the target.

    Finally you will have at close of target a almost empty tank that ads weight to missile. And that weight is unnecesary.

    Yes, but no.

    It is not the weight of the fuel tanks that is the problem... it is their size and lack of weight creating drag without retaining momentum. Think how hard it is to throw a balloon with any distance and accuracy and speed... it rapidly slows down because it lacks the mass to push through the air efficiently while its large volume and low weight mean very high drag.

    The only problem would be droping from missile. But could be more numerous stages.
    Sound stupid what ive said no?
    Mean the fuel to be put in short bars that be dropped one by one. But i think that would add extra weight.

    The proton rocket already uses fuel pods strapped around the base... the problem is that width = drag... a very long slim rocket makes just as much sense.



    _________________
    “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 Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:48 am

    GarryB wrote:Yes, but no.

    It is not the weight of the fuel tanks that is the problem... it is their size and lack of weight creating drag without retaining momentum. Think how hard it is to throw a balloon with any distance and accuracy and speed... it rapidly slows down because it lacks the mass to push through the air efficiently while its large volume and low weight mean very high drag.

    The only problem would be droping from missile. But could be more numerous stages.
    Sound stupid what ive said no?
    Mean the fuel to be put in short bars that be dropped one by one. But i think that would add extra weight.

    The proton rocket already uses fuel pods strapped around the base... the problem is that width = drag... a very long slim rocket makes just as much sense.

    Yes and no to you Garry... They may induce more drag, but they *more than make up for it* with the immediate reduction of weight. You have to remember that drag is only an issue during the initial launch (closer to the Earth = more air resistance as you know) while weight an issue throughout the entire process. This instantly renders weight a more important concern than aerodynamics.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

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

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:14 pm

    A stupid question: can a rocket have the engine in front? Like 4 nozzles whir equal flames and so the tanks could be dropped whitout dropping engines?

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

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

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:31 pm

    I know that would mean big engines even for last stage of rocket but will be more stealth in IR and more fast even if fly short distance.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

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

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  victor1985 on Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:34 pm

    Or what about air pressurized rockets? They dont emit IR at all

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 381
    Points : 376
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Rmf on Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:05 pm

    victor1985 wrote:A stupid question: can a rocket have the engine in front? Like 4 nozzles whir equal flames and so the tanks could be dropped whitout dropping engines?
    1.ofcourse it can, but it wont be very aerodynamic ,plus all those hot exhaust flames traveling several km/s near fuel tanks ,with heat and ablation risks.
    2.also fuel in outer space is free floating in tanks if there is no acceleration, and needs a kick- some G's pulled to settle at the bottom of the tanks so it can be pumped.
    3.it you have staging and want to lose the engines- how would you do it, if they are on top?

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 381
    Points : 376
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Rmf on Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:11 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Yes and no to you Garry... They may induce more drag, but they *more than make up for it* with the immediate reduction of weight. You have to remember that drag is only an issue during the initial launch (closer to the Earth = more air resistance as you know) while weight an issue throughout the entire process. This instantly renders weight a more important concern than aerodynamics.
    its a physics momentum equasion and kind of a paradox but you dont want your engine and tanks to reach orbit. only payload.
    with single stage rocket of 100 tonns when you get 4 tons into orbit its all big booster engines and tanks -no useful payload.

    with smaller 5 tonns 3rd stage moving fast and high you need about 1/4 booster size and engine weight and a small fuel tank -about 50%, so you get 50% payload from 3rd stage or 2,5 tons.
    and todays payload fraction for rockets is actually 3-4%.

    Sponsored content

    Re: New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:21 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:21 pm