New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

lancelot wrote:So these engines are supposed to have higher thrust-weight? And perhaps the whole rocket is lighter? Only way to increase ascent speed like that.

The diameter is essentially the same as the RS-36 (Vojevoda) but the overall length is greater by a non-trivial amount.
According to Wiki the mass is almost the same. I am not so sure about this given the difference in length. Assuming
that they are the same mass, a faster burn means longer range.

The advertising of the its potential use on trajectories over the south pole tells me that its range is substantially greater
than the RS-36. Going from high latitudes in the northern hemisphere over the south pole to middle latitudes in the northern
hemisphere is well over 20,000 km (*). It is likely that hypersonic glide vehicle range is being included in the total range. But
the ICBM range increase has to be substantial in any case.

(*) Circumnavigation range is about 40,000 km ignoring the oblate spheroid geometry and altitude of flight corrections.

something is giving the rocket a shove out of the silo .... then the rocket main engines ignite
so you aren't wasting rocket fuel overcoming inertia - and can use it all for acceleration instead

and its gentler on the onboard electronics re less vibrations
and harder to see the liftoff re less plume ?

you can see the "launch" "mini-stage" is almost like a piston ....
much tighter fit to the silo than the rocket it seems
then it falls away to the side - is that solid-fuel ? you would think so re lift off grunt

late to this thread .... sorry if you have already covered that ?
apologise in advance

The R-36 also used a similar ejection system. Try to look for videos of that.
If you compare the performance of the engine in the R-36 with the RD-180 you can see the RD-180 is a lot higher performance.
In terms of Isp the RD-180 is way better. But the fuel used in rockets like R-36 isn't supposed to be worse than LOX/Kerosene in performance.
So there was probably a lot of low hanging fruit they could have taken care of to optimize this rocket with more modern tech.
Plus, like kvs said, the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle itself should provide greater range to the payload. Enabling it to use a more depressed trajectory or complex trajectory to evade missile defenses.

The fact US radar defense and GBI in general were planned for either northern attacks via the North Pole or attacks coming from North Korea via the Pacific will also need to recalibrated. The mere existence of this missile will make US missile defense way more expensive in general.

But the fuel used in rockets like R-36 isn't supposed to be worse than LOX/Kerosene in performance. wrote:

Yes, but UDMH / N2O2 can be stored in a missile for 30 years. The missile is always in combat readiness.

Plus, like kvs said, the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle itself should provide greater range to the payload wrote:

How does HGV increase ICBM range? After all, HGV does not have an independent drive. In addition, it flies much lower than the RV entering the atmosphere. Does the atmosphere reflectivity give extra energy?

kvs wrote:

lancelot wrote:So these engines are supposed to have higher thrust-weight? And perhaps the whole rocket is lighter? Only way to increase ascent speed like that.

The diameter is essentially the same as the RS-36 (Vojevoda) but the overall length is greater by a non-trivial amount.  
According to Wiki the mass is almost the same.   I am not so sure about this given the difference in length.   Assuming
that they are the same mass, a faster burn means longer range.

The advertising of the its potential use on trajectories over the south pole tells me that its range is substantially greater
than the RS-36.   Going from high latitudes in the northern hemisphere over the south pole to middle latitudes in the northern
hemisphere is well over 20,000 km (*).   It is likely that hypersonic glide vehicle range is being included in the total range.  But
the ICBM range increase has to be substantial in any case.

(*) Circumnavigation range is about 40,000 km ignoring the oblate spheroid geometry and altitude of flight corrections.  

Sarmat, being a successor to the RS-36, is clearly of a lift category that allows it to operate as a FOBS system, so in exchange for a slight reduction of payload mass on target the range is essentially limitless. Not actually news, but worth repeating

so the glider needs atmosphere to create lift .... which requires an atmosphere
and rides on its own pressure wave .... extending its range

and the rocket goes into low Earth orbit .... then does a re-entry

counter-intuitively ... the "gliders" are then actually trying to slow down not speed up .... so the lift is conversion of excess speed
into excess range .... that makes sense to me

so there is little point doing more than say more than 1/2 an orbit in space .... as you will overshoot your target ... enormously
I get that bit too now ....

so what you are saying is that these warheads are actually more like space planes ?
and they can manoeuvre and fly erratic paths ... a swarm of mini space shuttles

holy shit .....

at least I now know why Rogozin said that X-37B (a mini space shuttle) is a weapon
in his view it is a XXXL hypersonic glider

it goes into LEO orbit .... then dives back into the atmosphere .... to begin a manoeuvre phase
and land ... or slam into something with an "unusual" cargo on board ....

my brain hurts .... I need a bourbon
.... better make that a double ... a triple sounds even better

(speaking of rocket fuel .... I do my own home brewing )

TASS; New equipment of the RF Armed Forces
Apr 24, 2:59 pm

The Strategic Missile Forces said that the Sarmat missile could be the carrier of several hypersonic units

The commander of the troops, Colonel-General Sergei Karakaev, noted that no country in the world has such complexes on combat duty.




MOSCOW, 24 April. /TASS/. The commander of the Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) of the Russian Federation, Colonel-General Sergei Karakaev, said on Sunday that the Russian Sarmat ballistic missile will be able to carry several hypersonic strike units at once.

“As for the Sarmat, this is a different missile system. It is based on a carrier that is much more powerful than the [current] carrier of the Avangard. And it was created, among other things, for the combat equipment of the Avangard, taking into account the fact that they warheads - TASS note) the number of warheads at this complex may be greater," he said on the air of the Rossiya-1 TV channel.

The commander of the troops stressed that no country in the world has such complexes on combat duty. "With the creation of Avangard, a new era has been created - the era of hypersonic weapons," he added.

In turn, the creator of "Sarmat", the general director and general designer of JSC "GRC Makeeva" Vladimir Degtyar noted that the new missile can provide a trajectory around the entire globe and allows you to strike from any direction. "You can attack from the north if the target is in the south, and attack from the south if the target is in the north," he explained.

According to the developer of the complex, the Sarmat rocket is the "crown of rocket technology" that has ever been created, it is one of the best rockets in the world. "We are capable, we know how. We will defend all our positions," Degtyar emphasized.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14459257

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:

lancelot wrote:So these engines are supposed to have higher thrust-weight? And perhaps the whole rocket is lighter? Only way to increase ascent speed like that.

The diameter is essentially the same as the RS-36 (Vojevoda) but the overall length is greater by a non-trivial amount.  
According to Wiki the mass is almost the same.   I am not so sure about this given the difference in length.   Assuming
that they are the same mass, a faster burn means longer range.

The advertising of the its potential use on trajectories over the south pole tells me that its range is substantially greater
than the RS-36.   Going from high latitudes in the northern hemisphere over the south pole to middle latitudes in the northern
hemisphere is well over 20,000 km (*).   It is likely that hypersonic glide vehicle range is being included in the total range.  But
the ICBM range increase has to be substantial in any case.

(*) Circumnavigation range is about 40,000 km ignoring the oblate spheroid geometry and altitude of flight corrections.  

Sarmat, being a successor to the RS-36, is clearly of a lift category that allows it to operate as a FOBS system, so in exchange for a slight reduction of payload mass on target the range is essentially limitless. Not actually news, but worth repeating

Oops, I didn't think hard enough. The thing basically injects the warheads into a low LEO. But that requires for the warheads
to be able to deorbit. So it is all about the warheads in the end.

Anyway, the Sarmat is not inferior to the RS-36 in any way.

TASS; Apr 25, 08:13

The timing of the next flight tests of "Sarmat" will be determined this week

Preparations for the mass production of the missile are being completed




MOSCOW, 25 April. /TASS/. The dates for the next flight and design tests of the Sarmat ballistic missile will be determined this week. This was announced on Monday by the Director General of Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin.
"Roscosmos enterprises have begun preparations for the next flight design tests of the Sarmat ICBMs for strategic purposes. Their dates will be determined this week," Rogozin wrote on his Telegram channel. https://t.me/rogozin_do/2469

According to the head of Roskosmos, preparations for mass production of the missile are also being completed.

The first launch of the intercontinental ballistic missile "Sarmat" was carried out from the Plesetsk cosmodrome in the Arkhangelsk region on April 20. The launch tasks were completed in full, and the design characteristics were also confirmed at all stages of the rocket's flight.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14462051

TASS; 27 апр, 08:57

Roskosmos to produce 46 Sarmat strategic combat systems


intercontinental ballistic missile "Sarmat"

MOSCOW, 27 April. /TASS/. State Corporation "Roscosmos" will build 46 strategic combat complexes "Sarmat", said its head Dmitry Rogozin on the air of the TV channel "Soloviev Live".

"Yesterday I conducted the operational headquarters of the Roscosmos cooperation to organize further testing of the Sarmat - I head this operational headquarters. <...> In total, we will have 46 Sarmat strategic combat complexes, that is, they will stand in those mines where the Voyevoda is standing ", - he said, noting that "a whole line of tests" of the missile is planned.
“Everything is going according to plan in principle, so we plan to conduct flight design tests during this year, in parallel we are already making serial missiles to equip the first regiment in the Krasnoyarsk Territory - this is the Uzhur division,” Rogozin added.

Podlodka77 wrote:TASS; 27 апр, 08:57

Roskosmos to produce 46 Sarmat strategic combat systems

if we believe that the maximum combat equipment of each missile is warheads with a total capacity of 8 megatons, it turns out 368 megatons on combat duty.

Scorpius wrote:

Podlodka77 wrote:TASS; 27 апр, 08:57

Roskosmos to produce 46 Sarmat strategic combat systems

if we believe that the maximum combat equipment of each missile is warheads with a total capacity of 8 megatons, it turns out 368 megatons on combat duty.

They can be much more powerful and over 40 megatons.
Currently, only the R-36M2 variant (modification 5) is in use, which has 10 nuclear warheads with a strike power of up to 800 kilotons per warhead. However, each rocket carries another 40 decoys that are identical in shape and size to the warheads. This means that one "Voevoda" missile can carry more than 10 nuclear warheads at the expense of a smaller number of decoys.
The R-36M2 (mod.6) had a strike power of up to 20 megatons.

And SS-18s known in the west as Satan could carry 10 warheads or in the single warhead version a single 20 megaton warhead.

I would think this new missile should be able to do better than 8 megatons.

The different weights are for different roles... normally very powerful warheads don't make a lot of sense because of the law of diminished returns.

If you have a 1KT bomb it wont even destroy most modern cities which are simply too big... life wont continue as normal after it goes off but to really kill everyone a single bomb is not very efficient.

In some cases in hilly areas even a 10 MT bomb might not give you good coverage but the odd thing is that while one 10 MT warhead might not do a great job larger numbers of smaller warheads can be much more efficient.

The issue is energy distribution... the fireball and damage from a 1KT explosion is not 10 times smaller than the fireball and damage from a 10KT explosion.

In fact a 1KT probably does more damage with radiation than it does with explosive force... the range it kills people from lethal doses of radiation is greater than the range it would kill people by flash and blast.

As the explosive power gets bigger the radiation range increases very very slowly compared with the blast radius until you get to bigger bombs where the distance the radiation will kill you doesn't matter because it is inside the fireball so the blast will kill you anyway.

If you are trying to destroy a flat open city of a large area it is more efficient to use five or more smaller warheads than to use one big one... a 10MT warhead in the centre of a big city will create intense destruction in the centre below the blast point but the radius of damage might only be 2 or 3 times bigger than a 1MT warhead, but if you use three 1MT warheads and spread them around the centre of the city then the damage radius will be much much bigger despite using much less explosive power.

It is like a cluster bomb vs a conventional bomb... if the target is troops in an open field then a cluster bomb spreading 200 x 2.5kg HE fragmentation bombs you could kill everyone in the field... a 500kg bomb which is the same weight landing in the middle of the field and the point of impact will have a huge crater and there will be no remains of the men standing there but 100m away the soldiers could survive such an explosion.

The difference is the target... if the target is Cheyanne mountain defence complex in the US then a penetrating 20MT nuke is what that was designed for, if it is a city like new york then 10 x 300KT warheads would actually be much more effective despite being much less powerful.

More importantly if you have a target like New York you wont launch one Sarmat with 10 warheads at it... because if it failed in flight then NY would not be hit.

What you would do is take say 5 different SLBMs and 5 ICBMs and in each one there will be one warhead in each missile that will have NY as its target with the rest of the warheads hitting other targets on the way there... they wont arrive all at the same time but all will hit specific locations to ensure it gets lethal coverage.

If an ABM system shoots down one or two warheads it doesn't matter because the remaining 8 will do the job... 5 would probably do the job but you use extra to make sure.

Precision means you can get the same job done with less power... to the degree that in 1985 if the Soviet Union wanted to destroy a factory from 1,000km away with a cruise missile their only option would be a nuclear warhead. These days they have the precision and accuracy to use a HE equipped missile to do the same thing.... obviously ammo dumps or fuel dumps require less missiles than an HQ or Barracks might of course.

Precision with navigation and targeting as well as improvements in C4IRSTAR means you can find the targets too... having the precision means nothing if you don't know where the targets are.

I know there is no plan to base Sarmat in Kaliningrad (there are no silos there anyway) but they can base some mobile Yars there surely and the times depicted here would still be valid.

owais.usmani wrote:
I know there is no plan to base Sarmat in Kaliningrad (there are no silos there anyway) but they can base some mobile Yars there surely and the times depicted here would still be valid.

Can't see any reason at all to place strategic missiles anywhere near Kaliningrad - never mind inside the enclave?!

If the graphic is not a fake then it is a CNN moment in Russian media. A fake is easy to do since the only reference to Sarmat is the
white text.

Kaliningrad would be a base for IRBMs and not ICBMs. Ludicrous to even think about stationing the silo based Sarmat there.

This is just plain ridiculous. The Sarmat will be hosted deep inside Russia. What you do have in Kaliningrad is the MiG-31K with Kinzhal.
Like kvs said you might place IRBMs there. But Sarmat is just plain overkill and too expensive for something like that.
You can make a much cheaper missile with less range and still hit those targets.
Russia already said they wouldn't put intermediate range weapons in Europe unless the US puts them there first.
What I think you might see is a positioning of Zircon missiles in Kaliningrad in some way if the US puts land based hypersonics in Europe.
And after that maybe a modified version of the Rubezh or something like that.

I suspect it is all just attempts by Russia and the West to step back from confrontation and realise that this is not all just about Ukrainians killing Ukrainians and Russians and that the west is only going to notice because their fuel bills are going to go up along with everything else.

This is a reminder that screwing with the Bear can result in a trip to accident and emergency... but another potential trip to the Morgue is also possible... even if the attack means the Bear gets put to sleep the damage will be done.

Sarmation is just a place holder... an example of what they have and could do if further pressured through HATO escalation of an already difficult situation.

Sarmatian could probably have its middle stage removed, which would massively reduce weight and increase the acceleration of the weapon even further as a very potent IRBM that could probably be fitted to the back of a truck for use anywhere they want to use it from...

Next gen scramjet powered weapons will be just as deadly and much much smaller and more mobile... a Zircon from a Yasen launched off the coast of Africa could hit targets in Europe without warning very very quickly too.

Russia already said they wouldn't put intermediate range weapons in Europe unless the US puts them there first.

They have already tested Tomahawk in AEGIS Ashore so Russias hands are free.

Any way the SM-6 has a ballistic range of about 1,000km and could be fitted with a nuclear warhead and launched at ground targets...

The Bastion "coastal defence" complexes will be equipped with Tsirkon. Up to 1.500km range against ground targets. They will show up in Kaliningrad.

The Bastion "coastal defence" complexes will be equipped with Tsirkon. Up to 1.500km range against ground targets. They will show up in Kaliningrad.

Would not be possible under the INF agreement banning intermediate and medium range surface launched missiles... thank you America...

@Arrow... Nice vid.

Clearly shows the cold launch...

Hole wrote:The Bastion "coastal defence" complexes will be equipped with Tsirkon. Up to 1.500km range against ground targets. They will show up in Kaliningrad.

Which coast is that?

One more high-quality video


Many sources say CEP Sarmata at about 10m. This is a huge improvement even in relation to the modern Yars, where the CEP is estimated at around 100-150m.
It looks like the huge Sarmat accelerates even faster than Yars