New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

They still call the B-52 and B-2s bombers for a reason...

The drawings of the silo defence systems are just vague concepts.

I would imagine the rings on the real silos to be much larger as to prevent a near miss.

As of now we do not even know the type of munitions that will be used in the silo defence systems, though some photographs might escape the new silos some time.

No. The point of the defences is to prevent a direct hit or penetrator warhead exploding underground.

Even a TOR missile hitting a weapon and setting it off above the ground can mean the difference between minor damage and defeat.

When a bomb detonates in the air it compresses the air and creates a shockwave and when that shockwave hits the ground it does damage.

A building will generally be crushed but the heavy covers for ICBM missile tubes wont crush and might suffer some surface damage but otherwise function just fine.

If that very same warhead hits the ground and punches down a few metres then the explosion generates a shockwave through the ground and while compressed air is powerful compressed dirt moving in a shockwave has vastly more energy and any pockets or hollows in the ground will collapse and be destroyed.

These defences are designed to stop any bomb or missile or warhead from getting to the ground intact and exploding in the ground.

When they were originally designed ICBMs might not have existed yet... nor cruise missiles.

ABM defences are not new and were quite mature when they were banned in the 1972 ABM treaty.

But most importantly it was SAMs to intercept ICBMs and SLBMs that were restricted... they weren't actually banned.

The ABM agreement allowed one air defence ABM system... the Soviets built theirs around Moscow and the US built their around their ICBM field but closed it the same day they opened it.

The purpose of the ABM field around Moscow was not to save Moscow, but to delay its destruction long enough for the orders to return fire could be transmitted to every relevant unit and force.

The purpose of the ABM field around an ICBM field is to assure you have a second strike option... but it was soon realised that in the time it would take for the number of nuclear weapons to be launched and to arrive to that ICBM field to destroy it rather than trying to defend it, it made more sense just to determine who was attacking and launch all your missiles at them... if they destroy your ICBM field... who cares because you missiles would have already been launched and be destroying their cities and his missiles would be wasted destroying empty silos.

My point was that the rings of interceptors would need to be wide enough to prevent the warhead from hitting the ground too close to the silo.

The INF and ABM treaty are both gone so you can use anything and put it anywhere.

In fact Russia can cover their entire country with nuclear armed missiles and just say they are ABM missiles and they can have as many as they please.

From what I read in books and magazines from the 80s and on the networks; apart from the ABM system in Moscow, the missile silos for the R-36 and derivatives already had point defenses. Specifically, they must currently exist.

And if the Americans wanted to object then you could argue that a concrete silo is a missile defence too...

The ABM missile treaty was all about stopping ABM interception in space... mostly because that would also lead to anti satellite weapons... which, if used on a wide scale would render earth orbit too dangerous to operate in which would make satellites impossible or horrendously expensive (you would have to protect them and replace them because of collision damage with other bits in orbit...)

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/18935663

Shoigu checked the implementation of the state defense order at the Krasmash plant that produces Sarmat.

November 18, 01:02
New equipment of the Russian Armed Forces

The Sarmat strategic missile system was put on experimental combat duty

MOSCOW, November 18. /TASS/. The newest silo-based strategic missile system "Sarmat" with the heavy liquid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) of the same name has been put on test combat duty. A source in the rocket and space industry reported this to TASS.

“The placement of the Sarmat on experimental combat duty in the Uzhur formation of the Strategic Missile Forces was carried out in parallel with the ongoing flight and design tests of the product,” he said.

TASS does not have official confirmation of this information.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/19318491

Sarmat made only one test flight in 5 years...

https://t.me/infantmilitario/113112

What's wrong with that? This means that the test program was essentially completed and an extra test was conducted for valid reasons.

Are we supposed to believe that one test in 5 years is a reflection of an inadequate testing program? Total BS. The Bulava was subjected
to years of intense testing because it was having problems thanks to NATzO sabotage infiltration at the production plant. The Sarmat appears
not have had this problem. So it can't be expected to be subjected to the same testing program as the Bulava.

One test flight is not enough considering other missile systems even if everything goes according to plan.

In many respects, the Sarmat missile is not revolutionary, but a logical development of the RS-36M2 Voevoda.  Russian-manufactured engines, guidance and avionics etc manufactured with more modern processes, replacing the original Soviet-era Ukropistani components, and these can be exhaustively ground tested both individually and as assembled & integrated systems. The number of qualification flights can be feasibly be very small.  While I would be surprised that a single test flight was considered adequate, if the flight data was an exact match to the expected dynamic performance forecast, considering their previous experience & database from operational tests of RS-36 variants, then I think a short test program is quite feasible.

Russian military simply do not introduce inadequately tested weapons into service, particularly with strategic misisle systems.  If they consider the Sarmat to be adequately tested to permit IOC, why would I agree disgaree with that judgement?

November 19, 00:05
New equipment of the Russian Armed Forces

Source: a regiment with the latest Sarmat ICBMs will go on combat duty in December
In parallel with this, flight development tests of the rocket will continue, the TASS interlocutor specified.

MOSCOW, November 19. /TASS/. The first regiment with the latest Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) will take up combat duty in the Strategic Missile Forces (Strategic Missile Forces) in December 2023. A source close to the Russian military department reported this to TASS.

“The first regiment wit Sarmat, consisting of a command post and several silo launchers (silos), will go on combat duty as part of the Uzhur missile formation of the Strategic Missile Forces in December of this year,” he specified.

TASS does not have official confirmation of this information. According to another TASS source, the regiment is currently on experimental combat duty in this formation. According to existing practice in the Strategic Missile Forces, a command post of a missile regiment and two silos are first placed on combat duty, then the number of installations is increased to the full complement.

According to the first of the sources mentioned, in parallel with the deployment of the Sarmatov regiment, flight development tests of the missile will continue, which have not yet been completed. The Sarmat flight tests are currently being carried out from the Plesetsk cosmodrome at the Kura training ground in Kamchatka.

As the Russian Ministry of Defense reported, the first launch within the framework of the Sarmat tests was successfully completed on April 20, 2022. It is believed that to carry out even truncated flight tests and provided that all launches are successful, several more launches will be required, including through the South Pole.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/19322689

Big_Gazza wrote:In many respects, the Sarmat missile is not revolutionary, but a logical development of the RS-36M2 Voevoda.  Russian-manufactured engines, guidance and avionics etc manufactured with more modern processes, replacing the original Soviet-era Ukropistani components, and these can be exhaustively ground tested both individually and as assembled & integrated systems. The number of qualification flights can be feasibly be very small.  While I would be surprised that a single test flight was considered adequate, if the flight data was an exact match to the expected dynamic performance forecast, considering their previous experience & database from operational tests of RS-36 variants, then I think a short test program is quite feasible.

Russian military simply do not introduce inadequately tested weapons into service, particularly with strategic misisle systems.  If they consider the Sarmat to be adequately tested to permit IOC, why would I agree disgaree with that judgement?

There was more than one test. I clearly recall references to more than one. Any claim of only one test is BS. It is possible that there was only one silo launch test
but that is OK.