Their experience with solid fuel is lot longer than most.
So I trust their choice.
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.
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.
Actually the opposite is true. Liquid fuels are more powerful than solid fuels and so should offer shorter burn periods. Also the threat of boost phase interception is zero... there will be no ABLs flying within 1,000km of any Russian ICBM base at the time of launch so that problem does not exist in reality. wrote:
Boost Phase R-36M2 is about 5 minut. Boost phase Topol M < 3 min...
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.
GarryB wrote:No. Solid rocket fuel is not cheap. It is actually rather expensive.
The real problem with the discussion about solid vs liquid is that most supporters of solid... ie the west think that liquid propellent is still in the dark ages and cannot be stored in the weapon.
Only the most primitive, firework rocket burning from the end.GarryB wrote:
In such a comparison the solid fuel rocket is better because it is always ready for use and handling of liquid propellents can be hazardous... and of course the loading period means a long delay if you want to fire an unfuelled missile.
Liquid fuel rockets need pumps and tubes to move fuel, and tanks to store fuel components apart inside the weapon.
Solid fuel rockets used to need strong external structures and burned from one end to the other with the lower area needing to be strong enough to support the heat and pressure of the rocket fuel as it burned.
Newer designs burn from the centre out so the burning fuel is supported by the remaining fuel outside it as it burns with the structure outside of that.
You deflecting the flow, in the case of the liquid you move the engine itself.GarryB wrote:
The R-73 is an air to air missile with solid rocket fuel and entered service in the 1980s. It had trim vanes mounted inside the engine exhaust to deflect the thrust to allow very energetic manouvers upon launch, so thrust vectoring is possible with solid fuel rockets... even just an external control surface could be used to steer the missile if needed.
ICBMs are filled with storable liquids that can remain in the missile for years at a time without maintainence.
Space rockets tend to not be fuelled until the rocket is near ready for launch and I suspect western "experts" are thinking of such rockets when they think about liquid propelled rockets.
Acceleration is power to weight ratio... it is not a solid vs liquid debate.
The liquid rocket is nothing else just a metal tube, that you fill up in a centrifuge with solid monopropellant.
If you want double thrust then just double the length of the pipe, and increase the diameter of the nozzle.
But of course the wall has to be strong enough to withstand the pressure.
Additional problem is because it is propellent, you need filling material to slow the burning ,and that decreasing the efficiency .
But the wall of the rocket (the tube) insulated by the propellant from the heat of combustion.
The liquid is different animal.
The fuel tank is simple thin metal.
But , the pumping of the liquid into the combustion chamber require high pressure and flow, means you need a gas turbine, two turbopump and a high temperature pressure chamber with cooling.
And if you want twice thrust then you need two times bigger from everything.
It is way more expensive and complicated than the primitive solid rocket.
GarryB wrote:Scramjet solves those issues...
GarryB wrote:Yes... so unlike with a normal turbojet or turbofan engine the intake air does not have to be slowed to subsonic speeds before going through the jet engine.
With a medium bypass turbofan engine the aircraft can take off normally from a runway but as it accelerates the air going through the engine can be greatly reduced while the air going around the engine... the bypass air flow can be increased and can generate the primary flow of thrust generating air.
At hypersonic speed up to orbital speed all the air flow can be bypass air with none going through the engine.... a scramjet being an air breathing rocket...
Arrow wrote:Sarmat program trouble ?
Arrow wrote:Sarmat program trouble ?
miketheterrible wrote:His conclusion at end isn't backed up by anything other than a hunch and not what the def min stated.