New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

IMHO there is no reason to keep the facilities for military and civilian liquid fuel rockets separate. The facilities which make the Soyuz-5 or Angara rocket could be making the Sarmat's replacement whenever it becomes necessary to do it. The tools equipment are basically the same and the know how is pretty similar. There is some specialized knowledge to handle hypergolics. But not THAT different. I already said more than once that I think Russia has way too many liquid rocket families for space launch and this is another manifestation of the same issue. Russia needs to handle its budget more carefully than the US since it can't just blow money uselessly like they do.

Russia gets accused of a lot of things but wasting money is not a common accusation...

Not like they never do of course... the NK-25 and NK-32 engines are different enough to not be compatible but had the same specs including weight and size and performance and are used by the same aircraft company... Tupolev... on their Tu-22m3 and Tu-160 designs... it would have been cheaper to use one engine type and focussed the money spent on the two different programmes essentially making the same engine to do it cheaper and faster, but who is to say it really was a waste.

In terms of compatibility and servicing it would not be perfect and having to make two different engines for two planes that require the same engine performance from each engine sounds silly, but who is to say they didn't combine development to make both development processes easier and faster with cooperation, or maybe competition drove them to make much better engines... resulting in more power and better fuel efficiency than the previous model engine achieved.

We can see the Tu-144 was not an efficient aircraft with its original 20 ton thrust engines which seemed to be related to the older engines used on the earlier Tu-22M2s... but the new engines for the Tu-160 were tested on the Tu-144 and massively improved performance... to the point where Russia hating America chose to work with Tupolov in the 1990s when they wanted to design new supersonic airliners, instead of their European partners with the still operational at the time Concord...

With the new engines the Tu-144 was closer in performance to what the Americans wanted to build so they insisted on working with Tupolev instead of the French.

Different engine types means more flexibility... the Russian aircraft industry suffered for a lack of engines in different power ranges as a legasy of the cold war and distributed production.

lancelot wrote:IMHO there is no reason to keep the facilities for military and civilian liquid fuel rockets separate. The facilities which make the Soyuz-5 or Angara rocket could be making the Sarmat's replacement whenever it becomes necessary to do it. The tools equipment are basically the same and the know how is pretty similar. There is some specialized knowledge to handle hypergolics. But not THAT different. I already said more than once that I think Russia has way too many liquid rocket families for space launch and this is another manifestation of the same issue. Russia needs to handle its budget more carefully than the US since it can't just blow money uselessly like they do.

You're completely missing the context. All these rockets are produced by DIFFERENT factories, design schools and research teams. There are literally thousands of kilometers between them. So the number of rocket types corresponds to the number of teams engaged in their development.

I've noticed Russia likes using "soft launch" systems from silos
re harder to detect the launch and gentler on the components on board etc etc

this is interesting

MIT - Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology
is about to sign a contract for a maglev train ....

MIT is a division of Roscosmos .....

this looks suspiciously like recycled engineering from a proposed maglev style soft launch silo system to me ....
ie what on Earth would a "thermal institute" being doing working on something like this ?

JSC "Corporation" Moscow Institute of Thermal Engineering "plans to sign an agreement on the construction of a track for a train on a magnetic cushion, said Yuri Solomonov, General Designer of MIT, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Hero of Labor of Russia.
“We are now at the stage of signing the agreement for the first route,” Solomonov is quoted by TASS.

He noted that the agreement will be in June.

According to him, the commissioning of the route is planned for 2025.

On May 13, it was reported that a model of a train on a magnetic cushion will be demonstrated for the first time by the Moscow Institute of Thermal Engineering Corporation.

shot of the prototype train in this article

https://www.worldstockmarket.net/maglev-trains-are-being-tested-in-russia/

maybe they will connect the Khrunichev Space Centre in west Moscow with the Korolyov conglomerate in east Moscow ?
that would be pretty cool ...

Cold launch systems means reloading is quicker and easier because there is no damage to the launch tube.

To be clear cold launch means the motor of the missile or rocket is not started till it is clear of the launch tube... their might be flames coming out of the launch tube as the cold launch system used to eject the weapon might include a rocket motor too.


Missile explosions often happen when the main rocket is fired up so having that happen outside of the launch tube is safer for the platform too... which is not to say it would be completely safe of course.

GarryB wrote:Cold launch systems means reloading is quicker and easier because there is no damage to the launch tube.

To be clear cold launch means the motor of the missile or rocket is not started till it is clear of the launch tube... their might be flames coming out of the launch tube as the cold launch system used to eject the weapon might include a rocket motor too.

Are the ATGMs and rockets launched by Mi-28, Ka-52 cold launched?

I gather, helicopter launched rockets cannot be cold launched. ATGMs probably. Not sure though.

kvs wrote:People find the product development process in Russia strange because it seems to occur from enterprises that are not nominally
focused on such development.

Who are these people? South Korea is surviving on Russian product management techniques. Ditto for China. Most Russian university toppers in STEM are immediately hired by Samsung, Huawei and other Asian tech giants.

I have discovered that the Soviets had a prototype maglev train
fascinating stuff .... the Rus are such intriguing people

https://englishrussia.com/2017/02/21/unique-soviet-magnetic-levitation-train-that-could-go-400-kmh-photos-video/

and it does seem the Chinese are looking at an electric catapult for their ICBMs from Tibet

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/china-building-cutting-edge-rockets-for-high-altitude-locations-could-be-deployed-on-india-border/story-QbZ7rXVia8PfQcYQuahCeK.html#:~:text=China%20is%20building%20rockets%20for%20its%20artillery%20units,indicating%20the%20projectiles%20could%20be%20deployed%20against%20India.

I think ... my gutfeel is probably right
this maglev train is a spinoff of a proposed rocket launch system

going off at my usual tangent ... you guys should be used to me by now

I don't know about you guys but I have theory on all technology
I believe that Rus and American engineering is very similar
they are both pragmatists .... they make things that are durable and as simple as possible

whereas the Germans and Japs are more obsessed with intricate engineering

I think it is to do with geography
Rus and USA are large countries and you need engineering that is durable and simple to maintain
whereas Jap and EU are very compact geographically so the need for simplicity and durability is less of an issue

why I was saying on the Car industry thing a week ago
Rus is crazy to adopt idiotic EU standards for cars .....
I think they should tell the EU to insert their car regs up Ursula dan ver Hairgel's date ....
it will be difficult of course .... they will need to extract her inflate head out there first

also why Rus and US are so well suited to working together in space
.... question is ..... what are the Chinese ?
vast country ..... I put them in the pragmatist camp .... I think that scares the shit out of the US ....


.... yes I'm having a home brew bourbon .... cheers

Are the ATGMs and rockets launched by Mi-28, Ka-52 cold launched?

The vast majority are because of the ATGM design.

If you put the solid rocket in the back of an ATAKA or SHTURM or Kornet or Vikhr missile then where would you put the rear facing sensor to detect the command guidance commands for the Ataka and Shturm, or the lasers the Kornet and Vikhr ride to the target?

Equally if the rocket motor is in the rear and burns forward the balance of the missile is going to get more and more nose heavy as the fuel in the rear burns and the back end gets lighter.

Most of the Russian/Soviet ATGMs have rocket nozzles mounted near the centre of gravity half way down the sides of the missile angled backwards to push the missile forward... but obviously in a tube these rocket nozzles wont blow the missile out of the tube so they need a gas generator or powder charge in the rear of the tube to blow the missile forward out of the tube... once it gets clear the rocket lights up and flames come out the sides but angled backwards to accelerate the missiles forward and often are angled slightly to induce a slow rate of spin as well.

Locating the rocket fuel around the centre of gravity means as it burns the missile remains balanced...

I gather, helicopter launched rockets cannot be cold launched. ATGMs probably. Not sure though.

Rockets are generally hot launched and follow a ballistic path so the shift in weight as the rocket fuel burns is accounted for in the ballistic charts or ballistic aiming tables for them... if you have ever played darts you will know that heavy weight in the nose and fins at the rear to keep it nose pointed frontwards works well enough... it is when it glides long distances in powered flight that cg issues arise.... especially when you want the warhead to be pointed at the target... preferably slightly nose down on impact...

I think they should tell the EU to insert their car regs up Ursula dan ver Hairgel's date ....

Totally agree... there are lots of weirdoes and freeks that get to make decisions regarding EU regulations... Russia should look at their own needs and the directions they want to take and just ignore the EU.

There might even be areas where EU regulations don't go far enough, but that will be for Russia to decide for Russia.

I need a drink now because you made me think of that witches freckle...

GarryB wrote:Rockets are generally hot launched and follow a ballistic path so the shift in weight as the rocket fuel burns is accounted for in the ballistic charts or ballistic aiming tables for them

But a number of helicopter launched rockets being used by both Russia and NATO are precision guided. So they don't need to follow a ballistic path. Yet these rockets are not cold launched.

They generally have guidance systems added to them that include control fins for steering... the guidance systems look forward for target marking laser spots or optical guidance so they don't need to look back at the launch platform like a command guided missile (Ataka, Shturm, Khrisantema) or the laser beams the missile is riding to the target (Vikhr, Kornet, Bulat).

The early ASMs the Soviets used were actually based on the AA-1 Alkali which was a complex mess of a design with the warhead in the nose and the command guidance pod in the tail and the rocket motors half way down the tube... it didn't last long as an AAM but they made them in enormous numbers so what do you do with them?

Well you use them as ASMs, so the Kh-25 family of missiles is based on the airframe... the Kh-66 western codename Kerry actually kept the rear mounted command guidance antenna and was manually flown into the target by the pilot. Later models include anti radiation weapons and the modular Kh-25 family of missiles all using the same layout.

These weapons are currently replaced by Kh-31 and Kh-58 and Kh-59 and Kh-29 and now Kh-38 and a range of other new weapons, though to be fair the Kh-59 still uses rear a facing datalink that communicates with a dedicated pod on the aircraft.

At its simplest level you can take an 80mm unguided Russian/Soviet rocket and fit a nose mounted fuse with built in control fins to steer the missile and a nose mounted seeker to find the target to make any unguided rocket guided... to maximise range you would loft it into the air so it comes in on the target diving down at an angle so cg is not a problem... it is not flying it is falling.

When we see Russian aircraft launching rockets into the air and firing them in volleys they wont be guided... Rockets are used for area targets and firing in volleys to get good coverage is normal and is not helped or improved with guidance kits for Rockets.

The idea of guided rocket packages would be to allow long range hits on point targets that even a volley of rockets might not hit... like a single vehicle, so you can save money by just using one rocket instead of the entire pod to try to hit a point target.

Ironically the RPG-7 is cold launched too... it fires like a recoilless rifle where propellent is detonated to blow the rocket down the tube and out towards the target at about 160m/s. At about 11 metres down range with the tail surfaces deployed the rocket motor of the RPG-7 rocket lights up and accelerates the rocket to supersonic speed and flattens the trajectory to the target.