New Russian heavy ICBM - Sarmatian

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

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.

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.

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...)

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.

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.

More retarded NATzO copium propaganda. They have to attribute everything to Putin's whim. Surely ebil Putler must be lying that Sarmats
will be deployed because everyone knows Russians can't upgrade silos and never planned to upgrade them until, being the congenital idiots that
they are, they found out that the Sarmat couldn't fit into the existing Voevoda silos.

GTFO.

The business model clearly is based around giving the people the information they want to hear (America is great and everyone else depends on us... we are indispensable... ignore the fact that we cut all ties with Russia and we thought that would crush their economy but they are actually growing faster than we are now that we have taken out fangs out of their arms and legs... it is a shock for the leech to realise it is not the centre of the universe...) but also eventually charging them to hear the BS they spew.... it takes time and energy to make shit up at that level...

The problem for America is that consumerism basically directly opposes being green and recycling and reusing and the big manufacturing companies in the west need to find some way of turning consumerism into something green that they can make money from.

The original model was that China and other sweat shop like countries with no strong employment laws and cheap but skilled labour would make rubbish stuff and western companies would do all the design which is where the money is made. Making it cheap means you have to buy a new one every 2 to 10 years. The next one will also have new interesting features so the customer will want the upgrade.

Who doesn't have a river of Apple products running in their family, where one or two or three people love them and buy the new one when it comes out and their wife or husband or children or parents get the old model so it feels less like destroying the planet.