Media: delivery of Sarmat ICBM is scheduled to begin in 2018.

Serial deliveries to the military department of the latest Sarmat missiles will begin in 2018 g, Interfax-AVN source message in the defense industry.

The launch of the intercontinental ballistic missile "Voevoda" P-36М2

“The first Sarmatians will come to the Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) no later than 2019. Most likely in 2018, ”said the source.

According to him, "to intensify work on the RS-28 Sarmat project, which is separately listed in the state armaments program up to 2020, allows the modernization of the Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant", where these missiles are made.

“Sarmat” is a powerful stabilizing argument capable of cooling even the hottest heads before the stage of combat use. The possibilities of Sarmat are unprecedented, ”the source said.

According to expert estimates, “the ICBM RS-28 will be able to deliver a divided warhead weighing up to 10 tons to anywhere in the world, both via the North Pole and the South Pole.” In addition, “Sarmat” plans to use as a carrier of the developed hypersonic units, called by the press “4202 project”.

“These are the very asymmetric solutions from the category of“ cheap and angry ”, which make it possible to deter potential aggressors without getting involved in a ruinous arms race,” the source said.

It is noted that the PC-28 should replace the mine-based rocket "Voevod" (NATO classification - "Satan") in the Uzhur (Krasnoyarsk Territory) and Dombarovsk (Orenburg region) divisions of the Strategic Missile Forces.

Earlier it was reported that the throwing tests of the new rocket should begin at the end of this year.

Comments

[Koresh]

A terrible deterrent weapon however, but also a powerful technological leap. Now it’s interesting how old rockets will be used; did they seem to want to use them for space flights?

[alexng]

Good crap for jackals. They cannot recover from the Voivode, and here a new dipresnyak is on the way.

[jjj]

As it seems, the Americans have spent the last forty years imagining the world with fantasies in order to provoke Russians to devastating spending on developing weapons. Part of the trick they did. But Russia really invented a lot of things that the West does not have

[weksha50]

jjj Today, 12: 46 ↑ New
It is thought that Americans in the last forty years have been imagining the world to provoke Russians to devastating spending on weapons development. Part of the trick they did.

Yes, it didn’t pass ... And Putin has repeatedly said that Russia will not get involved in the arms race, but that it will respond in more rational and cheaper ways ... And the article (not only this one) says that compared to other possible options THIS is the cheapest ...

[Muvka]

Not for space flights, but for launching small satellites at the DOE. And they are called the Dnieper.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%BD%D0%B5%
D0%BF%D1%80_(%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0
-%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C
)

[Observer2014]

Koresh

Now it’s interesting how old rockets will be used; did they seem to want to use them for space flights?

It will be so, only without Ukraine.
And about that the weapon is terrible. Also right. They also wanted to equip the "Voevoda" under thirty charges. Then, at the request or because of an agreement with the Americans, they refused. In general, the latest news regarding the new strategic systems of Russia is simply pleasing. The Americans thought that we would not rise. , scored on their Strategic Missile Forces, and that's how they got an anti-missile defense against primitive missiles from the power. And ancient strategic missiles.

[Muvka]

As for the charges, I only remember that START-2 was not signed by us due to the fact that it was required to replace the RGM with a single-block one, and we allegedly did not have money for this.

[Finches]

I would suggest thinking to the countries-pins ... kam, which the smart-ass Anglo-Saxons put in the first echelon ... that this fifth-generation contraption has the ability to defeat strategic objects according to the scenario of "global pi ... strike" without using nuclear fillings, but only the kinetic energy of the explosion! However, the same does not bother the Anglo-Saxons to think!

[drunkram]

Old missiles are great for stockpiles with non-nuclear warheads

[BARKAS]

It is noted that the PC-28 should replace the mine-based rocket "Voevod" (NATO classification - "Satan") in the Uzhur (Krasnoyarsk Territory) and Dombarovsk (Orenburg region) divisions of the Strategic Missile Forces.

Divisions with mine complexes were more well preserved and restored.

[NEXUS]

BARKAS

I wonder how the classification of NATO called Sarmatian?

If the Governor is Satan, then Sarmat is the Scribe. With that, according to any classifications, scribe.

[weksha50]

BARKAS
"More divisions with mine complexes would be good unset and restore"...

Hmm ... You won’t believe it, but it will cost more than to build new silos and control gears ...
THERE have been stolen for a long time, believe me ... Knowledgeable people will confirm ...

[Sergey K.]

“Sarmat is a powerful stabilizing argument, capable of cooling the hottest heads even before the stage of combat use. The capabilities of "Sarmat" are unprecedented "

A really powerful argument for business negotiations with an "exceptional" nation.

[rotmistr60]

weighty argument

Arguments are still available today. And this (as in that advertisement) is an argument.

[Mountain shooter]

Good news for our partners. We have something to answer. If anything ... And everything else - from the evil one.

[Engineer]

So far, there are only one test failure on the rocket: either the mine is not ready, then the rocket. Break the deadlines for throwing tests. I think it's time for someone in Energomash to blow a hat.

[fennekRUS]

The cap should be given to the one who ruined the country and industry.

[svd-xnumx]

Today it was reported that as early as August 25, a rocket launched from Plesetsk fell in the Arkhangelsk region. A pretty funnel formed at the crash site

The rocket launched from the Plesetsk cosmodrome fell and exploded in the Pinezhsky District of the Arkhangelsk Region. The incident occurred on August 25, but details became known today. According to TASS, citing a source in the emergency services of the region, as a result, no one was hurt and there is no threat to environmental pollution.

- The explosion was due to the fact that a blank fell in a forest in the Pinezhsky district as a result of an unsuccessful test of rocket technology at the Plesetsk cosmodrome. The product worked on solid fuel that does not have chemically hazardous substances. No one was injured as a result of the incident, there is no environmental pollution, the source told the agency.

Starting on August 25, social networks actively discussed the booming explosion in Pinezhsky District. According to local residents, cotton was heard at a great distance, and huge craters were discovered at the site of the emergency.

[BOB044]

[quoteSerial deliveries to the military department of the latest Sarmat missiles will begin in 2018, a source in the defense industry reports to Interfax-AVN] [/ quote] This will be a present to that patient on Clinton’s head if she is elected US president. They will be located in Uzhurskaya (Krasnoyarsk region). There will be closer to her.

[NEXUS]

BOB044

There will be closer to her.

I think that Sarmatu does not care deeply closer or further the target is from her ... it is enough for her to be on planet Earth and that is enough for the RS-28.

[Thunderbolt]

Krasnoyarsk residents have a favorable location for a massive strike against America, because missiles will be dispersed from the depths of our territory far from the enemy’s missile defense. The power of Siberia, in a word.

[T_T]

One pity that not this year will begin to arrive. A leaving monkey, from a torn economy, Samrat wink.
we would still have to make such a leap in the economy, but in civilian industry.

[weksha50]

"RS-28 should replace the" Voevoda "silo-based missile (NATO classification -" Satan ") in Uzhurskaya (Krasnoyarsk Territory) and Dombarovskaya (Orenburg Region) Strategic Rocket Forces divisions"...

That is, to where it’s easier to come to the states to visit ... Fine ...

If you consider that a useful abandoned warhead weighing 10 tons, I can imagine how many individual warheads with nuclear weapons and false warheads can be put in there ...

The statesmen called the "governor" "Satan" ... What name will they give "Sarmat" then?

[Varaga]

"Pesdes America" ​​is the coolest name.

[Nikolay71]

“Sarmat” is a powerful stabilizing argument capable of cooling even the hottest heads before the stage of combat use. The possibilities of Sarmat are unprecedented, ”the source said.
God forbid to get to the fighting something.

[Varaga]

Do not listen to anyone. Develop and build new containment tools. Remember this truth: when the enemy praises you - you do something wrong, when the enemy criticizes you - you do everything right.

[Talgat]

due to "perestroika" and the collapse there was a pause in the development and updating of nuclear deterrent

This could provoke the aggressor to rash steps

But better late than never - I hope Sarmat will arrive on time

[Old26]

What a pity that they removed the cons, at least in relation to the articles. For such an article, more precisely for the characteristics voiced there, you can put 20 cons in good conscience. One terminology is what it costs. An unnamed source is who, I suspect, is Deputy Minister of Defense Borisov, a former deputy minister of either the economy or trade of Russia.
Saying alone

According to experts, "the RS-28 ICBM will be able to deliver a multiple warhead weighing up to 10 tons to anywhere in the world through the North and South Poles."

what is worth. Maybe the deputy minister (or an unnamed source) still
It is worth going through an educational program to know that there is no such term: "can deliver a multiple warhead"

There is a term - cast weight. Which includes everything. And the breeding stage, and the instrument-and-compartment compartment, and the fuel of the breeding stage, and warheads and false targets. Moreover, the divided warhead no one delivers anywhere, anywhere in the world. The term RGCH itself - implies that on this warhead there are several combat units and false targets.

Which are separated from the dilution stage after the completion of the active section of the trajectory. BB weight according to the accepted documents - no more than 40% of the thrown weight. That is, if, according to the "source" - the MIRV has a weight of 10 tons, then only no more than 4 tons will reach the enemy (and even then through the North Pole).
Judging by the statements, the laws of physics and ballistics are completely redundant for the "source". As well as the fundamental "formula of Tsiolkovsky".
And that rocket, flying through the South Pole carried a combat load about three times less than the ballistic. flying across the North Pole - for the source too much knowledge. I'm not saying that suborbital rockets prohibited previous agreements

Quote: weksha50

"RS-28 should replace the" Voevoda "silo-based missile (NATO classification -" Satan ") in Uzhurskaya (Krasnoyarsk Territory) and Dombarovskaya (Orenburg Region) Strategic Rocket Forces divisions"...

That is, to where it’s easier to come to the states to visit ... Fine ...

If you consider that a useful abandoned warhead weighing 10 tons, I can imagine how many individual warheads with nuclear weapons and false warheads can be put in there ...

The statesmen called the "governor" "Satan" ... What name will they give "Sarmat" then?

George! You have always positioned yourself as a person who served in the Strategic Rocket Forces. But here is your term

useful discharged warhead weighing 10 tons

sorry makes me personally doubt your membership in the Strategic Missile Forces. No such term

useful discharged warhead weighing 10 tons

I will not disassemble further. The fuss, both in VO and in the media, is tired

By the way, the Americans call "Satan" not only "Voevoda". and the entire family of missiles, which they have the designation SS-18. A tm at least 7 variants (modifications) of missiles

[Operator]

Only orbital carriers of nuclear weapons are prohibited - i.e. making at least one full revolution in orbit around the Earth. This is considered one of the ways to deploy nuclear weapons in space.

Suborbital carriers (making less than one revolution) are not prohibited, since they are principally located on the Earth's surface. The Sarmat ICBM is one of such carriers.

[Kudrevkn]

Greetings, Maestro! Here is the Holiday on our street - a balm for wounds "Sarmatushka" Our hero will soon fly, Sokolik! Only throws were and now CLEAR SKY! Happy Holidays, Friends!

[weksha50]

Old26
"sorry makes me personally doubt your affiliation with the Strategic Missile Forces. There is no such term"...

Vladimir ... I’m getting old and old too ... you’re reading - you will not say that ...

[Old26]

Quote: Operator

Only orbital carriers of nuclear weapons are prohibited - i.e. making at least one full revolution in orbit around the Earth. This is considered one of the ways to deploy nuclear weapons in space.

Suborbital carriers (making less than one revolution) are not prohibited, since they are principally located on the Earth's surface. The Sarmat ICBM is one of such carriers.

Do not invent it, Andrey! There has never been a term "orbital carriers". Only "suborbital". They were also called "global rockets". In the USSR, the "global" GR-1 missiles were created (they did not go into production) and the suborbital version of the R-36 (8K67) missile. This version of the "global" (suborbital) rocket R-36A (other names are R-36orb, OR-36) or 8K69 for some time was on combat duty at Baikonur in the amount of 18 units (98th missile brigade consisting of 3 regiments) ... But according to the SALT-2 agreement, they were removed from combat duty and disposed of.
At one time between the USSR and the USA a scandal was brewing over the testing of this product. The Americans accused us of putting nuclear weapons into orbit and thereby violating the treaty banning the launch of weapons of mass destruction into space. We proved that during the tests the BG made less than one turn and therefore there can be no talk of putting it into orbit. The Americans were forced to swallow it, but in the SALT-2 treaty, they specifically introduced an article on suborbital rockets.
So if "Sarmat" is capable of carrying something across the South Pole, then this is a direct violation of the treaty.

Quote: KudrevKN

Greetings, Maestro! Here is the Holiday on our street - a balm for wounds "Sarmatushka" Our hero will soon fly, Sokolik! Only throws were and now CLEAR SKY! Happy Holidays, Friends!

How much poetry. That's just even throwing trials have not yet been, and you already dream about flying. BI is planned for the 4th quarter of this year, if the next time the deadlines are not shifted to the right. The final argument was the lack of readiness of silos at the Plesetsk training ground.

[Operator]

Do not put a shadow on the wattle fence, Vladimir.

There is no term "suborbital" in SALT-2, just as there is no ban on the deployment of nuclear weapons in space, including through the use of carriers that make one or more revolutions in orbit around the Earth.

Such a ban is established in a completely different document - the Treaty on the Principles of the Activities of States for the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies of October 10 on 1967.

The Sarmat ICBM, when flying across the South Pole to targets on the N American continent, does not make one revolution in orbit around the Earth and, therefore, does not violate the Treaty of October 10, 1967.

[Kudrevkn]

Pessimists say: "Ugh, does brandy smell like bedbugs?" And the optimists retort: ​​"Excuse me, these bugs smell like cognac!" Vladimir! YES, I am an optimist and a bit of a poet! You know, I'm tired of all this "chernukha". "The soul demands a holiday" !? (Vasily Shukshin, "Red Kalina").

[Old26]

Quote: Operator

There is no term "suborbital" in SALT-2, just as there is no ban on the deployment of nuclear weapons in space, including through the use of carriers that make one or more revolutions in orbit around the Earth.

Such a ban is established in a completely different document - the Treaty on the Principles of the Activities of States for the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies of October 10, 1967 ..

The ban on the placement of WMDs, including nuclear weapons, was stipulated in other treaties, including the one you mentioned. As well as an agreement banning the deployment of nuclear weapons in space.
As for suborbital rockets (another name for them is a global rocket, the third name is partially an orbital rocket), then in the OSV-2 Treaty there is a ban on these missiles. Article 9, paragraph C. And this is our system
in the West at one time was called SS-9 mod.3 or FOBS (partially orbital bomber system). So the article about the ban was and is

Quote: Operator

The Sarmat ICBM, when flying across the South Pole to targets on the N American continent, does not make one revolution in orbit around the Earth and, therefore, does not violate the Treaty of October 10, 1967.

But it violates the OSV-2 agreement

[Old26]

Quote: Old26

Quote: Operator

There is no term "suborbital" in SALT-2, just as there is no ban on the deployment of nuclear weapons in space, including through the use of carriers that make one or more revolutions in orbit around the Earth.

Such a ban is established in a completely different document - the Treaty on the Principles of the Activities of States for the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies of October 10, 1967 ..

The ban on the placement of WMDs, including nuclear weapons, was stipulated in other treaties, including the one you mentioned. As well as an agreement banning the deployment of nuclear weapons in space.

As for suborbital rockets (another name for them is a global rocket, the third name is partially an orbital rocket), then in the OSV-2 Treaty there is a ban on these missiles.
Article 9 paragraph C. And this our system in the West at one time was called SS-9 mod.3 or FOBS (partially orbital bomber system). So the article about the ban was and is. And according to this article, launchers in Baikonur were dismantled and the missile brigade equipped with these missiles was disbanded

Quote: Operator

The Sarmat ICBM, when flying across the South Pole to targets on the N American continent, does not make one revolution in orbit around the Earth and, therefore, does not violate the Treaty of October 10, 1967.

But it violates the OSV-2 agreement

[Operator]

There is no ban on OSV-2 Accommodation in orbit of nuclear weapons (for this there is an Agreement of October 10 of 1967 of the year), but there is only a ban on funds for withdrawal him into orbit:
Article 9
1. Each of the Parties undertakes not to create, test or deploy:
(c) Means for launching in near-Earth orbit nuclear weapons or any other types of weapons of mass destruction, including partially orbital missiles.

You are misinterpreting the phrase "partially orbiting rockets" - in OSV-2 they are mentioned only as a means of launching into a full-fledged near-earth orbit. To use them as a means of withdrawal to ballistic trajectory there is no prohibition.

The payload of the Sarmat ICBM flies through the South Pole to targets on the N American continent exclusively along a ballistic trajectory.

[Al. Peresvet]

Nuchto? -It is definitely happy!

[Old26]

Quote: Operator

There is no ban on OSV-2 Accommodation in orbit of nuclear weapons (for this there is an Agreement of October 10 of 1967 of the year), but there is only a ban on funds for withdrawal him into orbit:
Article 9
1. Each of the Parties undertakes not to create, test or deploy:
(c) Means for launching in near-Earth orbit nuclear weapons or any other types of weapons of mass destruction, including partially orbital missiles.

You are misinterpreting the phrase "partially orbiting rockets" - in OSV-2 they are mentioned only as a means of launching into a full-fledged near-earth orbit. To use them as a means of withdrawal to ballistic trajectory there is no prohibition.

The payload of the Sarmat ICBM flies through the South Pole to targets on the N American continent exclusively along a ballistic trajectory.

Andrew! Well, do not argue. This has been discussed more than once, and not on resources such as VO, RusAmri, Military Russia and others. It was discussed at serious sites by specialists who themselves participated in the development and conclusion of such agreements. In the OSV-2 agreement, there is precisely a ban on missiles NOT DISCLOSING into a full-fledged orbit, that is, into space, warheads. Therefore, they are named in the treaty - partially orbital, in contrast to the "orbital", which are all launch vehicles.
Their trajectory is stretched over several tens of thousands of kilometers. The maximum range of the 8K69 missile is about 40000 km. Moreover, the apogee is not very different from that of the ICBM.
At the same time, a "cargo" three times less than that of an 8K67 ICBM was delivered to the target.
About the tests of these OGF I, if you are interested in unsubscribing tomorrow, now it’s a long time to look.
And, as I wrote above, the Americans tried to accuse us of violating the treaties banning the launch of WMD into orbit. However, our excuse was iron. The VHF trajectory did not constitute a closed orbit and therefore there was no violation, because there was no launch into space, i.e. into stable orbit
However, the Americans nevertheless introduced a clause on the ban on partially orbital missiles (suborbital) into the OSV-2 treaty. As a result, the 794th regiment was removed from duty at the sites 160-165, the 157th regiment at the sites 191-196 and the 353rd regiment at the sites 241-246. As a result, the 98th missile brigade equipped with these suborbital (global, partially orbital) missiles ceased to exist

[Old26]

Quote: Operator

There is no ban on OSV-2 Accommodation in orbit of nuclear weapons (for this there is an Agreement of October 10 of 1967 of the year), but there is only a ban on funds for withdrawal him into orbit:
Article 9
1. Each of the Parties undertakes not to create, test or deploy:
(c) Means for launching in near-Earth orbit nuclear weapons or any other types of weapons of mass destruction, including partially orbital missiles.

You are misinterpreting the phrase "partially orbiting rockets" - in OSV-2 they are mentioned only as a means of launching into a full-fledged near-earth orbit. To use them as a means of withdrawal to ballistic trajectory there is no prohibition.

The payload of the Sarmat ICBM flies through the South Pole to targets on the N American continent exclusively along a ballistic trajectory.

Andrew! Well, do not argue. This has been discussed more than once, and not on resources such as VO, RusAmri, Military Russia and others. It was discussed at serious sites by specialists who themselves participated in the development and conclusion of such agreements. In the OSV-2 agreement, there is precisely a ban on missiles NOT DISCLOSING into a full-fledged orbit, that is, into space, warheads. Therefore, they are named in the treaty - partially orbital, in contrast to the "orbital", which are all launch vehicles.
Their trajectory is stretched over several tens of thousands of kilometers. The maximum range of the 8K69 missile is about 40000 km. Moreover, the apogee is not very different from that of the ICBM.
At the same time, a "cargo" three times less than that of an 8K67 ICBM was delivered to the target.
About the tests of these OGF I, if you are interested in unsubscribing tomorrow, now it’s a long time to look.
And, as I wrote above, the Americans tried to accuse us of violating the treaties banning the launch of WMD into orbit. However, our excuse was iron. The VHF trajectory did not constitute a closed orbit and therefore there was no violation, because there was no launch into space, i.e. into stable orbit
However, the Americans nevertheless introduced a clause on the ban on partially orbital missiles (suborbital) into the OSV-2 treaty. As a result, the 794th regiment was removed from duty at the sites 160-165, the 157th regiment at the sites 191-196 and the 353rd regiment at the sites 241-246. As a result, the 98th missile brigade equipped with these suborbital (global, partially orbital) missiles ceased to exist

[fzr1000]

Or maybe we have "hammered" the ban now?

[Old26]

Quote: fzr1000

Or maybe we have "hammered" the ban now?

You can "score" anything. That's just the other side can "score" on everything and then it will not seem a little to anyone, incl. and for us.
It was the bans passing from treaty to treaty that made it possible to contain the arms race between the USSR (Russia) and the USA.
This is a separate topic that everyone could do.

As for the "suborbital" flight trajectory of the "Sarmat" through the South Pole. To be honest, there is no obvious need for this. I will explain why
1. Our first partially-orbital bomber system was created and deployed when the Americans did not have a serious satellite group of SPRN and most of the ground-based SPRN stations were also oriented west-north-east, and not south.
For almost 50 years, the situation has changed radically. The Americans have a fairly powerful satellite constellation SPRN, which in the first tens of seconds will determine the trajectory and then prolong it. That is, the Americans will know about the very fact of launching through the South Pole in a minute or two.
2. To be honest, I don't see the need for such a system. If the flight time for ICBMs for targets in the United States is about 25-30 minutes, then the flight time for "suborbital" missiles going through the South Pole will already be approximately equal to the duration of a single-turn trajectory. I will repeat myself. For the same R-36 ICBM, the flight time to targets was 25-30 minutes, for the "orbital" R-36 orb - in the region of 88-89 minutes.

What is the need for such a variant of the Sarmat flight? The existing US missile defense system is simply NOT ABLE intercept complex targets, that is, targets with RGH. After all, there will be ten of them, goals. The combat units themselves, false targets, the level of breeding. They are not capable of this yet. The Americans will not intercept either the ICBMs or the suborbital version (global missile). So why fence the garden?
3. If we take this problem seriously, it becomes clear that the Sarmat will not be able to carry the same throw-load at a distance of 40000 km as at a distance of 12-16 thousand km.
And the "storyteller" Borisov continues to broadcast to us that "Sarmat" will deliver a multiple warhead to the enemy in 10 tons even through the north, even through the south pole.
Andrey (Operator) and I have already discussed possible starting and throw weights based on open data. So, to be honest (according to Stanislavsky) in 10 tons, I "don't believe"

[Operator]

OSV-2 clearly states that only means for withdrawing nuclear weapons to orbit.

A ballistic flight path (by inertia after the last stage rocket engine is turned off) without forming an enclosed portion of the path above the surface of the Earth is not an orbit.

Ballistic flight path - any open flight path above the Earth at a distance of less than 40000 km. Those. inertia flight from Eurasia to North America through the South Pole of the Earth is not an orbital flight.

[Old26]

Quote: Operator

OSV-2 clearly states that only means for withdrawing nuclear weapons to orbit.

A ballistic flight path (by inertia after the last stage rocket engine is turned off) without forming an enclosed portion of the path above the surface of the Earth is not an orbit.

Ballistic flight path - any open flight path above the Earth at a distance of less than 40000 km. Those. inertia flight from Eurasia to North America through the South Pole of the Earth is not an orbital flight.

Andrew. You are trying to prove the unprovable. The R-36 orb was a partially orbital (suborbital) rocket designed not for launching a load into space, but for use as a suborbital one. And she was under this agreement ELIMINATED as a violator, She was not supposed to bring weapons into space. And precisely two test launches, where we decided to "wipe the Americans' nose", led to the loss of this weapon system. Suborbital were banned. According to the SALT terminology, they were called partially orbital, but this does not change the situation.

[Operator]

I have a lot of experience writing industry guidelines, federal laws and intergovernmental agreements.

From the height of this experience you are mistaken