New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

Consider that 8 Borei's will be constructed until 2020 with 5 of them to have 20 silos for 6 MIRV Bulava missiles

3x16x6=288 WH from Borei I
5x20x6=600 WH from Borei II

and about 4 Delta IV class
4x16x4=192

Total = 1070 missiles

They could easily arm the Bulava or Sineva with 3 warheads each and more pen aids .....is there a hard and fast rule that it should be 6 warhead each or they might just decommision more Delta 4.

Alternatively they might just keep the numbers of warhead on Sea based platform and try to reduce the warhead of Air Based Strategic Deterrent and reduce the number of warhead of new ICBM or just de-induct more SS-18 from present 55.

There are many ways to play the game .....as long as you officially declare your warhead as part of START and keep to 1500 limits there is no problem.

The number of SLBMs will likely be about 700, and I suspect the ICBMs and SLBMs they do produce will have reduced numbers of warheads in service to increase the number of decoys and penetration aids they can carry, but also in case the US further develops ABM systems around the place.

Having all the extra missiles with greater warhead capacity will allow Russia the flexibility to greatly increase the number of real warheads they deploy without having to spend too much.

Their introduction of new Breeder nuclear reactors should make the production of new nuclear warheads quick and relatively cheap...

Having a heavy missile able to carry 15 warheads will allow them to use fewer missiles.

It will also be useful at the end of its operational life as a satellite launcher...

Note with the SSBNs it is easy to withdraw subs and convert them to other purposes like rescue and deep sea research.

I rather suspect the shift from 16 missile Boreys to 20 missile Boreys is a direct reaction to the US Missile Shield programs.

Russia to Adopt New Liquid Heavy ICBM after 2022 - Expert

Russia will only be able to adopt a new 100-ton liquid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) intended to penetrate the US missile defense system by 2022, the manufacturer said on Tuesday.

Russian military mentioned the possibility of the new ICBMs in 2009 but the official decision to launch development of the new silo-based missile designed to replace the Voyevoda R-36M2 Satan ICBM was only announced late last year.

“Statistics says it will take about ten years,” said Andrei Goryaev, deputy director of the Russian missile maker NPO Mashinostroyeniya.

He said it was hard to make any forecasts about the timeframe. “If the country has not done it for 30 years then difficulties are inevitable,” he said.

Strategic Missile Forces chief Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakayev said in December that Russia’s current solid-propellant ICBMs might be unable to penetrate U.S. missile defenses that the country is deploying in Europe to protect against possible attacks from ‘rogue states’ such as Iran and North Korea.

Russia has expressed concerns that the U.S. missile shield might threaten its national security.

Presently, Russia's Strategic Missile Forces reportedly have over 400 ICBMs, including 171 Topol (SS-25), 70 Topol-M (SS-27), and three RS-24 Yars missiles.


http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120508/173310124.html

With Bulava and Liner and Yars all in production there is no real urgent need right now for a new missile, but in the future if they want the capacity of greatly increasing numbers rapidly it will be useful.

By 2022 it will be clear what the US is doing with its ABM shields all over the place and a decision can be taken.

With the arrest of a former test engineer , who was exposed as a CIA spy , am not sure how much of the Bulava and other similar programs have been compromised .

Secrets get sold quite often, I wouldn't get too worried about this.
A small leak doesn't affect the program very much, this guy wasn't a top employee or anything.

This could be a possible test launch of a new Russian IRBM/ICBM. At the end of its trajectory it went into a spiral path. Some claim it was a failure because of the spiral. Some claim it was a success because of the spiral.

This is the link to the original source:

http://www.rt.com/news/israel-ufo-missile-337/

This is an edited commentary from Mr. A. Smith from the same source:

The 3rd. Stage of the Bulova and now Topol Mobile Nuclear ICBM missiles finishing in a grand spiral fashion is directly related to totally throwing off USA ABM radar guided interceptors.

While the ABM rams the finished 3rd. Stage, the MIRV'd delivery device goes on to flood a region with it's 10 MIRV'd warheads (Topol). Readers should immediately realise the same concept is used to ward off enemy torpedo's aimed at a another submarine, the dummy spins around creating a huge target for sonar and sensors to lock onto. The 3rd. Stage finishing death spiral flurry is the same concept on a much larger scale stating 'here I am' to the ABM interceptor. ...

... The Russian mobile ICBM Topol missile test was a total success. For nearly 20 years now Russian Strategic Missile engineers have spun the 3rd. stages of their solid fueled ICBM's to enable them to impact into target zones shorter than their normal 6,000km range.

This occurs thru a very precise and intricate dance of opening vectors in opposite thrust nozzles in the 3rd. stage boosters to slow them down as well as bleed off fuel while accurately delivering the MIRV'd 10 nuclear warhead payloads .... The target impact was a mere 2,000km from it's launch site which the Russians deliberately chose to duplicate near identical extremely fast ICBM boost trajectory to terminal stage down to impact (still under boost) ... The Russian test resulted in a very steep trajectory to get up to full ICBM speed without overshooting the target zone traveling a lot higher than normal and then headed back down towards the target zone while still thrusting.

Russia to create new ICBM by 2018

Russia is due to create a new heavy intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by 2018, Strategic Missile Forces commander Sergei Karakayev said on Monday.

“Construction of the missile is ongoing,” he said. “It is to be completed by 2018.”

The new missile is to replace the R-36M2 Voyevoda (NATO reporting name SS-18 Satan) missile.

So far all of Russia’s recent ICBM projects, both sea-launched (Bulava) and ground-based (Topol-M, Yars), have been solid fuel.

Karakayev said the new ICBM will have a launch mass of around 100 tons with a better payload-launch weight ratio than in a solid fuel missile. Such ICBMs can only be deployed in silos.

Earlier, the Russian Defense Ministry said that if the United States went ahead with its missile-defense-in-Europe plans, Moscow would respond in kind by notably creating a new sophisticated ICBM.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_09_03/Russia-to-create-new-ICBM-by-2018-official/

Its being in the pipeline for at least 5 years now, just as new attack nuclear submarine and only now and than something pops out.

By 2018, Russia will design and build a new heavy intercontinental ballistic missile, as part of its asymmetric response to the deployment of the US anti-missile defense system, head of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces Colonel General Sergey Karakayev said. The new silo-based ICBM will replace the R-36M2 ‘Voyevoda’ missile (known to NATO as the SS-18 ‘Satan’).

For the first time the plans on producing the new heavy missile which was to replace SS-18 Satan missile were voiced as early as 2010. Now the implementation of this plan is linked with political factors, first of all with the progress of the US-Russia talks on ABM. That is why experts and mass media began to see the new missile as Russia’s response on the US deployment of its ABM.

So far it has been decided that lighter missiles, first of all the RS-24 Yars missiles will form the core of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces, Igor Korotchenko, chief editor of the “National Defense” journal says.

"I think solid-fueled RS 24 Yars both silo deployed and of mobile basing will form the mainstream line for the development of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces and namely their ground component. They must be the core of the Strategic forces for the next 50-60 years. As for the new liquid fueled ballistic missile its fate will depend on the results of the talks between Russia and the US on ABM and on the economic situation. Will Russia be able to finance liquid and solid fueled missiles at the same time?"

Alongside the economic factors it is necessary to take into account whether it is rational or not to produce such a missile. Some experts believe that silo-based intercontinental missiles both light and heavy oneshave become too vulnerable for high-accuracy weapons. We hear from General Mayor Vladimir Dvorkin, an expert at the Institute of the World Economy and International Relations.

"I think it is not reasonable to develop a new site fixed and liquid fueled missile. In the armament system it can be used only for the initial strike or, as a last resort, as a counter attack. I see this scenario as absurd with regard to the main nuclear powers which are Russia, the US, China, France and the UK. This missile is not suitable for a retaliatory strike because it has a very low viability. It is vulnerable to all missile defense weapons."

In this situation experts conclude that the deployment of a new group of silo based missiles is grounded only in one case: if the US begins to speed up the deployment of its ABM system which can threaten Russia’s nuclear potential. But this scenario is possible only if the parties return to the state of the Cold war which is very unlikely today.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_09_04/What-will-replace-SS-Satan-18-missile/

RIA NOVOSTI

New Russian ICBM Can Carry Bigger Warhead

Russia’s new heavy intercontinental ballistic missile will have a 5-ton warhead, which is four times that of its predecessors, a former military commander said on Friday.
“The new ICBM will have a payload four times bigger than that of the Yars missile,” said Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin (Ret.), advisor to the Russian Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) commander, who served as SMF chief of staff in 1991-93.
“The 45-ton Yars has a payload of 1.2 tons. The new missile will be able to orbit a payload of 5 tons.”
The new missile will have a greater capability for missile defense penetration, he said.



SMF chief Col. Gen. Sergei Karakayev said this past Monday that Russia will build a new ICBM by 2018. The new missile is to replace the R-36M2 Voyevoda (NATO reporting name SS-18 Satan) missile.
So far all of Russia’s recent ICBM projects, both sea-launched (Bulava) and ground-based (Topol-M, Yars), have been solid fuel.

Karakayev said the new ICBM will have a launch mass of around 100 tons with a better payload-launch weight ratio than in a solid fuel missile.

Such ICBMs can only be deployed in silos.
The Russian Defense Ministry previously said that unless the United States abandons its plans to create a missile defense system in Europe, Russia will take counter measures, including building a new heavy liquid-propellant missile.

Some of the reporting it that article is a bit baffling to me.
1st, well if its launched a reasonable distance inside Russia, I cant see how its likely to be intercepted in the boost phase, if solid fuel rockets cant be intercepted.
(BTW yes, I know liquid fuel rockets have a longer boost stage, but on current technology, I still cant see the US hitting a missile 1200 km inside Russia in boost phase).
2nd, does it have to be silo launched and not vehicle launched?
3rd could it be a hybrid missile eg some stages liquid, others solid fuel?

Finally, once again I wonder, why the hell does Russia spend billions on negotiating the US nonsense. Wouldnt it make sense to base shorter range missiles in Cuba, Venezuela and friendly West Indian states too?

1st, well if its launched a reasonable distance inside Russia, I cant see how its likely to be intercepted in the boost phase, if solid fuel rockets cant be intercepted.

What they are talking about is the early period of the Rockets flight when it is most vulnerable.

During the boost phase even the cheapest crappiest IR sensor can detect that enormous plume of fire coming out the rear of the missile... all the warheads are together and the decoys have not been deployed so for 500 warheads... lets assume about 80 rockets where some have three warheads and some have 10. This means an ABM system in Alaska has to intercept 500 real warheads and thousands and thousands of decoys. A system in Europe however has to intercept about 80 rockets.

Solid fuelled rockets burn out quicker so they are not blinding targets for as long as a liquid fuelled rocket.

They are also less powerful than liquid rockets.

(BTW yes, I know liquid fuel rockets have a longer boost stage, but on current technology, I still cant see the US hitting a missile 1200 km inside Russia in boost phase).

Due to the rotation of the earth the Russian rockets don't go over the north pole, for targets on the US east coast their trajectory would actually take them over northern europe.

The George Bush jnr plan was enormous interceptors that would have intercepted ICBMs well above Europe.

The current plan is ship based so a group of AEGIS class cruisers in the North Sea and Arctic ocean could be positioned to stop Russian ICBMs easily... the positioning of them will be easy... not the interception itself.

The point is that the radars in Europe should give them the early warning and precise trajectory information they would need for the interception attempts...

2nd, does it have to be silo launched and not vehicle launched?

Silos are already built and are actually much cheaper to use than mobile systems that require far more security.

The only real threat to a silo is an ICBM/SLBM or B-2 and there should be enough warning for the silo to be empty by the time the silo is taken out.

3rd could it be a hybrid missile eg some stages liquid, others solid fuel?

Why?

Solid fuel is expensive, modern liquid fuels are storable for the operational life of the missile and more powerful than current Russian solid fuels. They also offer the flexibility in being shut down and restarted so depressed trajectories can be implemented.

Finally, once again I wonder, why the hell does Russia spend billions on negotiating the US nonsense. Wouldnt it make sense to base shorter range missiles in Cuba, Venezuela and friendly West Indian states too?

Being an @$$hole to an @$$hole is self defeating... let them play their stupid games and let them think it makes them safer. The secret is to work out counters that will render their expensive white elephants useless without costing Russia too much.

Having a heavy weight ICBM with a 5 ton throw weight means it can be loaded with heavier warheads now but in the future if START changes or is ripped up they can load lighter smaller warheads in much larger numbers so they can rapidly increase warhead numbers without having to spend money on more missiles. In the mean time the extra space can be used for decoys and penetration aides.

Firebird wrote:Some of the reporting it that article is a bit baffling to me.
1st, well if its launched a reasonable distance inside Russia, I cant see how its likely to be intercepted in the boost phase, if solid fuel rockets cant be intercepted.

Everything can be intercepted in boost phase if you are near enough. I think thats the reason Russian mind only placing ABM in Norway and around countries not so much in countries like Poland and Romania. Well no matter boost phase or not, encirclement is obvious.

Firebird wrote:(BTW yes, I know liquid fuel rockets have a longer boost stage, but on current technology, I still cant see the US hitting a missile 1200 km inside Russia in boost phase).

What about midcourse.

Firebird wrote:2nd, does it have to be silo launched and not vehicle launched?

100 ton missile is not you can drive around easily.

Firebird wrote:3rd could it be a hybrid missile eg some stages liquid, others solid fuel?

Bulava, Yars and I think even Topol-M perhaps have its third stage liquid.

Bulava, Yars and I think even Topol-M perhaps have its third stage liquid.

Not true.

Most ICBMs have their warhead bus fuelled by liquid propelents because they use manouvering thrusters, that depending on the accuracy of the launch might require a little adjustment of course or a lot.

Very simply if you want solid fuel then all three stages should be solid fuel because all three stages are to get the warhead bus moving towards the target at a speed and direction that will get it close.

The job of the warhead bus is then to manouver to release a warhead... so say we are talking about a four warhead MIRV bus, that means the warhead bus has four warheads sitting in it. Once the third stage has burned up and fallen away the warhead bus tries to work out where it is in 3D space and where its first target is. The warhead bus will then activate its thrusters to manouver itself so it is flying directly on an impact course for the first target and then it will release a warhead. That use of fuel and release of warhead will make the warhead bus lighter so when it burns fuel to manouver to line up the second target it will need to use less fuel to manouver. It will then release the second warhead towards the second target, which again will reduce further the weight of the warhead bus so much smaller bursts of thrust from the manouvering thrusters will be needed to adjust the course of the bus to aim at the third target and the release of the third warhead. The warhead bus is now much lighter with the release of three warheads and the fuel burned to deliver them to their targets, so the thrusters can be used for much shorter bursts to manouver the bus onto the last target... the release of this warhead is interesting... because if I was designing the system I would design it so the last warhead was facing backwards and for the last target I would make the warhead bus flip over and release the last warhead and then use the remaining fuel in the warhead bus to accelerate the now empty warhead bus down towards the target... it would have more mass than most decoys and would be something else the potential defence system would have to decide how to deal with.

It would certainly be heavier and more substantial than a decoy and could contain a nuclear device too so I suspect the defenders would need to attempt to deal with it the same way they would a real warhead... which introduces doubt in their minds and could distract them for a useful time...

Of course MARV is a much better solution.

Obviously in a real world example it will be dumping decoys etc, but for the purposes of understanding why the warhead bus uses liquid rather than solid fuel is hopefully pretty clear.

Trying to do the same with solid rocket fuel would involve lots of little rocket thrusters like the Dragon ATGM, but they would all need to be aligned to the centre of gravity of the warhead or it will start the bus spinning when fired...

Note new Russian MARV warheads have their own guidance and manouver capability so they are all ejected as soon as the 3rd stage burns out along with the decoys. This means that the warheads can actually hit much more widely separated targets that are further from the path of the missile and also accuracy is improved as the warheads simply fall from a warhead bus, while MARVed warheads can follow specific paths all the way down to the target and can correct minor errors all the way to impact... for a MIRV any small errors increase over time and can be quite large by the time they get to the target area.

It also means that once the third stage is burned out the decoys and warheads are deployed so there is no single warhead bus to target... you have to deal with all the warheads and the decoys.

GarryB wrote:
Not true.

Most ICBMs have their warhead bus fuelled by liquid propelents because they use manouvering thrusters, that depending on the accuracy of the launch might require a little adjustment of course or a lot.

Very simply if you want solid fuel then all three stages should be solid fuel because all three stages are to get the warhead bus moving towards the target at a speed and direction that will get it close.

Bulava 2 solid and 1 liquid stage.

Number of stages - 3 (two solid boosters and a liquid upper stage)

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/bulava.html

I thought perhaps even Yars may have it as it is little unclear was it Topol-M or Bulava modification.

Just by shutting and reigniting its engines or by increasing or decreasing trust on its third stage (as solid boosters can not do that)

missile trajectory will change considerably making calculations in missile interception more complicated and unpredictable and

interception less likely.

My mistake... Apologies...

Funny Bias report on Russia's new missile.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/13/russia-to-create-son-of-satan-missile/

Hehehehehehe...

My reply:

The real threats to US security that this proposed missile defence system deals with are?

This new Russian missile is a reaction to US persistence with missile defence systems in Europe.

The Russians have only asked for a written guarantee that the US ABM system in Europe will not be used against them.

Russia is not being unreasonable in not believing verbal promises from the current US administration, after all their believing promises from Bush Snr and Baker that NATO would not expand, that former Soviet countries would not become part of NATO, that no NATO troops would be stationed in eastern europe... lots of promises and after a change of leadership the new regime never felt obliged to adhere to the previous administrations promises... what has changed?

BTW with Mitt Romney stating that Russia is the USs number one foe, and McCain saying very similar things the last election cycle is Russia being reasonable in not trusting the US. Just one election away from changing policy.

BTW Satan is to be replaced in Russian service because many of its components are Ukrainian. Perhaps if US ICBMs were produced in Canada and the two countries had a falling out then you might understand that building a new missile to replace the old one might make sense.

It will be ready by 2018 with various testing starting next year.

Missile will replace SS-18

The latest liquid-fuel ICBMs will create "a body" in 2014

So the new heavy Russian ICBM has its name and some brutal specifications. 

- better than Satan on raw performance but with new tips and tricks


Rocket "Sarmatian" will put into service in 2018-2020 years

This is the missile that will replace SATAN SS-18. 

These missiles will feature high combat power and readiness of equipment used in providing the required complex command and control system reliability, ensuring the possibility of implementing a wide range of paths and directions of the missile; significant opportunities integrated application of new specialized tools and ways to overcome missile defense

Russian Missile Forces to Field New Heavy Missile by 2020 – Commander

Russia’s Strategic Missile Force will deploy a new heavy intercontinental ballistic missile no later than 2020, its commander said on Tuesday.
“We are counting on introducing into the armory by 2018-2020 at the outside a new missile system with specifications not inferior to its predecessor,” Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakaev said.

The new silo-based Sarmat ICBM will replace the world’s most powerful nuclear missile, the twenty-five-year-old R-36M2 (SS-18 Satan).
Sarmat is expected to feature advanced countermeasures to enable it to penetrate missile defenses including a complex command and control system and a high degree of maneuverability, he said.
The new system is just one of a number that will totally replace Soviet-era missiles by 2021, he said.
“New hardware is arriving on time and by 2018 more than 80 percent of Russia’s strategic missile force will be comprised of the latest weapons,” Karakaev said.

By 2018, Russian nuclear forces will be limited to 1,550 warheads and 700 total deployed strategic nuclear delivery systems including long-range missiles and bombers as part of the New START treaty signed with the United States in 2011.

Karakaev called that number “necessary and sufficient” to maintain strategic nuclear parity with the US and other nuclear states.
Commenting on the United States’ nuclear arsenal, Karakaev claimed “their reduction in numbers is compensated for by upgrades of their missiles and the delivery systems of the entire strategic triad, giving them new technological capabilities.”

The new missiles are part of a $700 billion procurement plan for the Russian Armed Forces in the period to 2020.


http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131217/185648744/Russian-Missile-Forces-to-Field-New-Heavy-Missile-by-2020-.html

Russian Strategic Rocket Forces: Prospects

Russian Strategic Missile Command expects that by the year 2018-2020 will be completed development work on the "Sarmatian" associated with the development of a new heavy liquid ICBM, said Feb. 25 at a press conference in "Interfax", the former Chief of Staff of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel-General Viktor Esin. New missiles will be replaced in two divisions standing on alert ICBM RS-20V "Governor." 

In turn, the former head of the 4th Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of Russia Vladimir Vasilenko indicated that the development in Russia of a new heavy liquid ICBM will deter U.S. plans to deploy a global missile defense system. That heavy silo-based ICBMs, he said, "gives you the opportunity to deliver the warheads to targets not only energetically optimal trajectories with hard azimuths of approach warheads to targets, therefore, with the predicted azimuths of approach, but also deliver warheads and strikes from different directions including shipping units via the South Pole. " 

In addition, a huge stock of useful payload to heavy ICBM allows equip its various means to overcome missile defense, which ultimately will "oversaturate" any missile defense system. 

Heavy ICBMs at equipping its precision warheads with conventional warheads would be an adequate response to the implementation of the constraint in the United States announced the concept of global instant impact by conventional means Another priority of the Strategic Missile Forces, as said Victor Esin, - completion of work this year complex "yars" and its modifications - the SS-26. 

The third priority - creating long-term combat equipment, which will be able to overcome existing and future missile defense system. 

Speaking about the place RVSN Russian nuclear triad, Esin noted that they accounted for 60 percent of carriers and more than 50 percent of nuclear weapons. The costs for the maintenance and development of the Strategic Missile Forces do not exceed 5 percent of the total expenditure on national defense. 

According to him, Russia is not being developed bottom of intercontinental ballistic missiles. They were banned Soviet-American agreements still in the 1980s. 

However, in Russia are conducted development work on the creation of combat rail missile systems designed to launch an ICBM. Viktor Esin recognized that the development of such systems, there are several obstacles. Thus, in Russia there is no technical experience in this field, as in Soviet times they were created in Ukraine. Second, lost all the infrastructure that was created in Soviet times, and recreating it is necessary to invest huge amounts of money.

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.