New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

Or a new Avangard unit? 

Did Russia Have a Failed Sarmat Launch Today?

That is what US media is reporting.  They say the ICBM test launch failed with the 2nd stage exploded.

https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1628181314254798848?s=20

The purpose of testing is to find problems and fix them.

The purpose of western "testing and exercises" is political sabre rattling... which is why failures are so damaging to the west.

When will the west test a successful hypersonic weapon for example?

https://www.osnmedia.ru/world/bloomberg-v-ssha-oprovergli-dannye-ob-ispytanii-rf-mbr-vo-vremya-vizita-bajdena-v-kiev/

Bloomberg: US denies data on Russian ICBM test during Biden's visit to Kyiv

February 22, 2023, 12:37 pm - Public News Service - OSN
According to Bloomberg, the United States denied the information that Russia allegedly tested an intercontinental ballistic missile at a time when US President Joe Biden was in Kiev.

Earlier, CNN, citing sources, informed that Russia allegedly tested ICBMs during Biden's visit to Ukraine.

“Russia did not test ICBMs while Biden was in Kyiv,” a US official was quoted by Bloomberg as saying.

Recall, on February 24, Russian leader Vladimir Putin announced the start of a military special operation in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, retired General Andrey Gurulev expressed confidence that the suspension of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty "won't raise any questions." In his opinion, Russia cannot have any agreements with the United States .

https://www.gazeta.ru/politics/news/2023/02/22/19809061.shtml

Peskov responded to reports of the unsuccessful launch of the Sarmat rocket

Press Secretary of the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Peskov answered a journalist's question at a briefing about publications in foreign media related to the launch of the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

In particular, the American television channel CNN reported, citing unnamed “ US officials ”, that Russia allegedly conducted unsuccessful tests of the Sarmat this week. The authors of the material stated that if the tests had been carried out successfully, Russian President Vladimir Putin would have mentioned them in his message to the Federal Assembly , which he announced on February 21. According to media reports, Moscow has notified Washington of plans to conduct such a test.

Initially, CNN indicated that this launch was carried out when US President Joe Biden was visiting Kiev , namely on February 20. However, channel sources specified that the missile was tested on February 21.

Peskov said that he could not answer this question, pointing out that "this is still the prerogative of the Ministry of Defense."

In November last year, Commander Sergei Karakayev of the Strategic Missile Forces reported on the successful testing of the Sarmat missile system.

https://forum.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/index.php?topic=7387.12560

Reading this thread through machine translation this is what I conclude:

1. The Sarmat 2nd test launch was conducted on Saturday 18th February.
   
2. The 2nd stage of the missle failed, 1st stage worked properly.
   
3. Already the 3rd test missile has left the Krasmash factory in Krasnoyarsk, so 3rd test flight should be within a couple of months.
   
4. 3rd test to be performed from Uzhur instead of Plesetsk?
   

Arrow, you have obviously never developed anything before.

A failure during tests is not a bad thing... the purpose of a test is to find faults and to confirm expected results... the irony is that actually a fault is better than not meeting expected results.

A fault might be as simple as a chip or a crack or a minor faulty component that didn't do its job when it was supposed to... the solution might just be check all those parts before they are installed for cracks or chips, It should not need a redesign either in shape or materials or structure, because your design model and design process was right, it was a faulty part that was the problem.

If there are no faults or errors but your design does not meet the expected specs then the problem is rather more fundamental... your design processes are wrong, your modelling of materials or the medium the objects operates in is wrong, which is a much bigger problem and could take years to fix.

Even mature modern solid designs can fail because a faulty part snuck through the building process... incorrect assembly can happen.

NASA fucked up a rocket design because the plans to build the rocket that were sent to the engineers to build it got mixed with the descriptions sent to the marketing department so the dimensions were partly in metric (which the engineers want) and partly in Imperial measures (which the public understands in the US) and the missile blew up.

Not the end of the world... the design was ok, it was just that it was assembled with faulty plans and manuals.

PD bitches and moans about that Russian that installed something upside down which caused a crash a while back, but these people have very specific instructions and if the instructions are misleading or actually wrong they will drill new holes to install stuff where it is supposed to go and assume the guy making the holes for the fasteners made the mistake.

What they should have done was stopped work and told their supervisor that the holes are in the wrong place and to work out if their instructions are up to date or if they are old plans and new plans have changed things, but I suspect they were in a hurry to get the thing ready for launch and just assumed the other guys made a fuckup.

The places that make military equipment are just factories... there is nothing magic or special about them... the designers don't go down to the factory floor and make sure everything is assembled to their specification...

The people who check everything make sure it matches the instructions given... they wont have memorised every part of the rocket and realise this or that is the wrong size or is upside down.