How SKB Makeev's designers successfully caught up with Lockheed engineers

46
Today JSC “State Rocket Center named after academician V.P. Makeev” (JSC “SRC Makeeva”) is the leading developer of solid-fuel and liquid missile systems of strategic purpose with ballistic missiles intended for installation on submarines. And also one of the largest Russian research and development centers for the development of rocket and space technology. On the basis of the SRC, a large strategic holding was established, which included the leading enterprises of the industry: JSC Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant, JSC Miass Machine-Building Plant, JSC Research Institute Hermes, JSC Zlatoust Machine-Building Plant. The work of this holding is of strategic importance for our country.

In the Russian military-industrial complex, the Makeev Center stories of its existence, engaged in the development of outstanding samples of rocket technology. For more than 65-year history of existence, the designers of the SRC have designed and handed over to the Navy three generations of missile systems, as well as 8 basic missiles and immediately 16 of their upgraded versions. These missiles constituted and continue to form the basis of the naval strategic nuclear forces of the Soviet Union, and then of Russia. In total, the SRC specialists collected approximately 4 thousands of offshore production missiles, more than 1200 missiles were fired, and the success of the launches was more than 96%. In each of the missile systems created weapons the designers solved the fundamental tasks that ensured the development of sea rocket production in our country, the achievement of qualitative results that surpass the world analogues, contributing to the deployment of an effective maritime component of the strategic nuclear forces of our state. The development of the Makeev Center is still an integral part of modern rocket production.



However, this was not always the case, the missile center and its team had to go a long way, which encompassed competition with such a giant of the American aviation industry, like Lockheed, this company was engaged in the development and production of UGM-27 Polaris and UGM-73 Poseidon SLBMs. Thanks to the dedicated work of the designers of the Makeev Center, they created the missile systems that were installed on all Soviet strategic submarines, by the mid-1970s, they had overtaken the American counterparts manufactured by Lockheed in their effectiveness. True, before that they had to go a long way.

How SKB Makeev's designers successfully caught up with Lockheed engineers
The first launch of the R-11FM 16 rocket in September 1955 of the year on board the experimental submarine B-67

Already in the first post-war years, a new rocket industry was rapidly developing in the USSR, and its headquarters, OKB-1, headed by Korolev, began to expand its production base. 16 December 1947 was set up by a government decision-making design bureau with laboratories and an experienced workshop. From 1948, it became known as SKB-385 (Special Design Office No. 385). This bureau, the main purpose of which was the development of long-range missiles, was formed on the basis of the Urals plant number XXUMX, located in Zlatoust. The first task for the new design office was to support the production of the P-66 rocket at plant No. 1, this rocket was assembled in the image of the famous German V-66 rocket.

Truly SKB was able to turn around after it was headed by Viktor Petrovich Makeev (1924-1985 years). He was appointed Chief Designer at the suggestion of Sergey Pavlovich Korolev himself and came to the Special Design Bureau of the Royal OKB-1, where he was the lead designer. Korolev managed to discern the creative potential of Makeev, sending him on an independent voyage. Makeev became the chief designer of SKB-385 in 1955, at his suggestion, construction began on a new production site located on the northern outskirts of the city of Miass in the Chelyabinsk region, at the same time the design bureau moved to a new location. Together with the new chief designer, the new developments went to Miass - the short-range ballistic missiles P-11 and P-11FM. Thus, the design bureau, which, prior to 1956, was engaged in the development of mass production of OKB-1 development missiles, began the independent creation of ballistic missiles intended for installation on submarines.

16 September 1955 of the year in the USSR was the first in the world launch of a ballistic missile R-11FM from a submarine. The rocket developed at OKB-1 by chief designer Korolev was deployed on submarines of the 611AB and 629 projects, the technical test leader was Viktor Makeev. Successful tests of this rocket marked the beginning of the creation of Soviet naval nuclear forces. The rocket was brought to mind by the 1959 year, after which it was put into service. It was removed from service only in the 1967 year, although as early as the beginning of 1960-s it was obvious that this missile was very quickly morally and technically outdated. Possessing a range of 150 km, a circular deviation of 3 km and a relatively small charge of 10 kt, this missile provided only a surface launch with sea waves up to 4-5 points. The surface launch of the rocket significantly complicated the possibility of its secretive launch from the Soviet diesel-electric submarines.

Launch of UGM-27C Polaris A-3 from USS Robert E. Lee nuclear submarine rocket carrier November 20 on November 1978

In 1960, the Soviet fleet a more advanced single-stage ballistic missile R-13 (complex D-2) was adopted, its make-up was already made by Makeev himself. The new missile partially solved the problem of its predecessor, which, due to its short range, did not allow striking at objects located deep in the enemy’s defense, which had developed anti-submarine defense. The maximum range of the R-13 missile increased to 600 km, and the power of the warhead installed on it increased to 1 Mt. True, like its predecessor, this missile provided only the possibility of a surface launch. This missile was already put on diesel and the first Soviet atomic submarines, remaining in service until 1972.

The creation of a single-stage ballistic missile R-21 (D-4 complex), which became the first Soviet missile with a submarine launch, was a breakthrough in Soviet rocket production. The increased characteristics of the rocket allowed to correct the balance in the strategic nuclear forces that took shape in the 1960-s. The P-21 rocket was put into service in the 1963 year, remaining in service for almost 20 years. But even this missile could not compete with the UGM-1960 “Polaris” (Polar Star) missile adopted in the US in 27 year.

In contrast to the Soviet single-stage liquid-fuel rockets, the American Polaris ballistic missile was solid-fuel and two-stage. Polaris A1, adopted in November 1960, in many ways exceeded the P-21, adopted in service in May 1963. The American missile could cross the 2200 km, while the maximum launch range of the P-21 was 1420 km, while the circular probable deviation of the American missile was 1800 meters against the 2800 meters of the P-21. The only advantage of the P-21 was the high charge power - 0,8-1 Mt vs 0,6 Mt from the American UGM-27 “Polaris” rocket.

Ballistic missile P-27 with a split head

In the pursuit race between the two countries, SKB-385 still had room to grow, especially given the fact that in the US 1962, the Polaris A2 missile developed by Lockheed with a range increased to 2800 km and a more powerful 1,2 MT warhead was used. The rocket, which on equal terms could compete with the American "Polar Star", was created in the USSR in the period from 1962 to 1968 year. It was 13 March 1968, the new single-stage ballistic missile Makeev R-27 (D-5 complex) was adopted.

When developing a new rocket, a number of innovative solutions were used, which for many years determined the appearance of SKB-385 missiles:

1) Maximum use of the entire internal volume of the rocket to accommodate the fuel components in it, the location of the main engine in the fuel tank (a recessed scheme is used), the use of a common fuel tank and oxidizer bottom, the location of the instrument compartment in the front bottom of the rocket.
2) Sealed all-welded body made of shells obtained by chemical milling of plates, the material for these plates served as aluminum-magnesium alloy AMg6.
3) Reducing the volume of the air bell due to the sequential start-up at the time of launching first the steering engines and then the cruising engine.
4) Joint development of elements of the rocket-launch system and the rocket, the rejection of aerodynamic stabilizers, the use of belt rubber-metal shock absorbers.
5) Factory refueling of ballistic missiles.

All these measures allowed to significantly increase the average density of the missile layout, which had a positive impact on its dimensions, as well as a reduction in the required volume of the mine and tanks of the annular gap. Compared to the previous Makeev P-21 rocket, the firing range of the new P-27 increased 2 times, the length and mass of the missile itself decreased by one third, the mass of the launcher decreased more than 10 times, the annular gap volume was 5 times. The load on the submarine per one missile (the mass of the missiles themselves, launchers for them, rocket mines, and also tanks of the annular gap) decreased by 3 times.

Nuclear submarine project 667B "Moray"

It is also important to understand that at the first stage of its existence, Soviet submarine-launched ballistic missiles were not the weakest link of the submarine strategic fleet. They fully corresponded to the tactical and technical level of the first Soviet nuclear submarines. These submarines also lost to the Americans on a number of parameters: they had a smaller range and speed, they were more noisy. Not everything was in order with accidents.

The situation began to level off at the beginning of the 1970-ies, when the first boats of the Xurenb “Moray” project arrived at the Soviet Navy. The boats had reduced course noise and carried excellent acoustic and navigation equipment on board. The main weapon of the new submarines was the two-stage liquid-propellant ballistic missile R-667 (D-29 complex), created by engineers of KB Mashinostroeniya (as of 9, it was called SKB-1968) under the leadership of chief designer Viktor Petrovich Makeyev. The new rocket was put into service in the 385 year.

As part of the D-9 complex, the rocket was placed on board the 18 submarines of the 667B Moray project, carrying the X-NUMX P-12 missiles, which could be released in one gulp from depth to 29 meters and with sea waves to 50 points. Adoption of this missile has greatly increased the combat effectiveness of Soviet submarine missile carriers. The intercontinental flight range of new missiles eliminated the need to overcome the developed anti-submarine defense of NATO and US fleets. In terms of flight range - 6 km, this Makeeva rocket surpassed Lockheed’s UGM-7800 Poseidon C73 rocket developed by the company in 3. The American rocket had a maximum range of just 1970 km (with 4600 units). At the same time, its circular probable deviation still exceeded the indicator of the Soviet P-10 - 29 meters against 800 meters. Another feature of the American missile was a shared warhead with individual targeting units (1500 units for 10 CT), while the P-50 was a all-in-one missile with a 29 MT warhead.

Launch of UGM-73 Poseidon C-3 rocket

In 1978, the missile R-29D was adopted, which was armed with 4 submarines of the 667BD Murena-M, which were already carrying 16 missiles on board. At the same time, for the first time in the USSR, the azimuthal astrocorrection system (correction of the flight plane using stellar landmarks) was used for the first time in the USSR to obtain the necessary accuracy of firing on the P-29 ballistic missiles. The P-29D’s rocket probable deviation rate reached a comparable indicator with the Poseidon C3 rocket - 900 meters, while the maximum firing range increased to 9100 km.

At the same time, liquid ballistic missiles for nuclear submarines, created by specialists from Makeev’s SRC, were brought to the highest degree of perfection after the death of the ingenious designer. So the rocket R-29RMU2 "Sineva", adopted by the Russian fleet in 2007 year and placed on the submarines of the third generation 667BDRM "Dolphin", is superior to the US Navy Trident-1990 missiles armed with the US Navy. According to numerous experts, including foreign ones, Sineva is recognized as the best submarine-based missile in the world. The most important indicator that makes it possible to judge its combat effectiveness is the ratio of the mass to be dropped to the mass of the rocket itself. At Sinevy, this figure is significantly higher than that of the Trident-2: 2 t on 2,8 t against 40 t on 2,8 t. At the same time, UGM-60A Trident II, created by Lockheed Martin, with an 133 ton weight can hit targets at a distance 2,8 km.


The Russian three-stage ballistic missile R-29РМУ2 “Sineva” has a launch range from 8300 to 11 500 km depending on the combat load. The missile can carry up to 10 combat units of individual guidance with a power of 100 kt each, or an 4 block with a capacity of 500 kt each with enhanced countermeasures against enemy missile defense systems. The circular deviation of these missiles is 250 meters. The sea rocket Р-29РМУ2 "Sineva" and its development Р-29РМУ2.1 "Liner" in its energy-weight perfection (technical level) are superior to all, without exception, modern missiles from the USA, China, Great Britain, France, the official website of the Makeyev Center of Education and Development reports. Their use can make real the extension of the operation of strategic nuclear submarines of the project 667BDRM "Dolphin" to 2030 year.

Information sources:
http://makeyev.ru
http://bastion-opk.ru/grc-kbm
http://svpressa.ru/post/article/107362
Open source materials
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    3 October 2017 08: 01
    So, the R-29RMU2 Sineva missile, adopted by the Russian fleet in 2007 and deployed on the third-generation 667 submarines, the Dolphin, surpasses the Trident-1990 missiles that have been in service with the US Navy since 2. According to numerous experts, including foreign ones, Sineva is recognized as the best underwater missile in the world. The most important indicator that allows us to judge its combat effectiveness is the ratio of the cast mass to the mass of the rocket itself. At Sineva, this indicator is significantly higher than at Trident-2: 2,8 tons at 40 tons versus 2,8 tons at 60 tons.

    If these numerous experts seriously compare the liquid “Sineva” with the solid-fuel “Trident” on this indicator, then the best they can do in their expert activity is to kill themselves against the wall with a minimum QUO.
    Liquid rockets, by definition, have much greater weight efficiency.
    At the same time, the liquid Sineva has such a number of shortcomings (for example, a wet start) that I had to make a solid fuel Mace ...
    Here is the “Mace" and it makes sense to compare with the "Trident" in terms of weight efficiency.
    1. +9
      3 October 2017 09: 16
      Quote: Mik13
      At the same time, the liquid Sineva has such a number of shortcomings (for example, a wet start) that I had to make a solid fuel Mace ...

      A wet start is not a constructive drawback of Makeev’s BR - a constructive feature of Soviet submarines (each went its own way. With the wet method, it is easier to keep the submarines at a given depth) later Makeevtsy repeatedly proposed the use of a dry start for liquid BR
      1. +1
        3 October 2017 09: 57
        Quote: mark1
        A wet start is not a constructive drawback of Makeev’s BR - a constructive feature of Soviet submarines (each went its own way. With the wet method, it is easier to keep the submarines at a given depth) later Makeevtsy repeatedly proposed the use of a dry start for liquid BR
        How is it not? But what is this if not a flaw? Fun feature?
        I think if the Makeyevites could master the dry start for Sineva, they would do it. The military would be delighted.
        And so the USSR made the world's largest nuclear submarines, 941 Ave., which were the carrier of the world's largest solid-fuel rocket R-39. Which is typical, with a dry start.
        1. +3
          3 October 2017 11: 20
          Quote: Mik13
          I think if the Makeyevites could master the dry start for Sineva, they would do it.

          Already done sort of, but in an experimental manner.
          Quote: Mik13
          And so the USSR made the world's largest nuclear submarines, pr. 941, which were the carrier of the world's largest solid-fuel rocket R-39. What is characteristic, with a dry start

          And what is characteristic of the largest missiles were because there was not enough perfect fuel, which took up a lot of space in the rocket. The size of the rocket, and this was due to the fact that the 941 project boats became the largest in the world.
          1. +1
            3 October 2017 12: 06
            Quote: DenZ
            And what is characteristic of the largest missiles were because there was not enough perfect fuel, which took up a lot of space in the rocket. The size of the rocket, and this was due to the fact that the 941 project boats became the largest in the world.

            This is what I mean.
            At the same time, such forced gigantism turned out to be more profitable in terms of the combination of technical, technical and operational characteristics than compact liquid rockets.

            PS What is characteristic, etc. 941 turned out to be extremely successful and tenacious. EMNIP, one of the boats survived the rocket explosion in the mine during a training launch without any particular damage - which is quite delivering ...
            In any case, our American partners in the political process with great pleasure forked out for disposal, which in itself is suggestive. They know how to count money well.
            1. +1
              3 October 2017 12: 44
              Quote: Mik13
              At the same time, such forced gigantism turned out to be more profitable in terms of the combination of technical, technical and operational characteristics than compact liquid rockets

              I do not agree. Liquid-propellant rockets have better energy-mass characteristics than solid-propellant ones. At the 941st project, solid-fuel did “to catch up and overtake” and because in operation solid-fuel rockets are simpler and safer (and since then nothing has changed fundamentally).
            2. +1
              3 October 2017 13: 45
              Quote: Mik13
              At the same time, such forced gigantism turned out to be more profitable in terms of the combination of technical, technical and operational characteristics than compact liquid rockets.

              At the same time, the first two SLBM modifications for the 941st project did not correspond to the range requirements of the Ministry of Defense. Even despite the epic MGH. And the third modification came exactly at the collapse of the USSR and did not reach the series.
              What about benefits by a combination of characteristics... even the Soviet Union did not pull the construction of a full-fledged base station for the 941th SSBN project.
              1. +2
                3 October 2017 14: 38
                Quote: Alexey RA
                At the same time, the first two SLBM modifications for the 941st project did not correspond to the range requirements of the Ministry of Defense. Even despite the epic MGH. And the third modification came exactly at the collapse of the USSR and did not reach the series.


                There is another plus - they could shoot from under the ice (thanks to the ARS) - i.e. launch areas "suddenly" expanded to a huge area hidden by ice.

                And launch options through ice up to 5 m thick were studied - i.e. in the water area of ​​the entire SL of the ocean, regardless of hummocking.
              2. +3
                3 October 2017 21: 19
                He pulled the construction of the USSR, only kirdyk came to him ahead of time. And our base was not bad. Just do not have time. And these boats were excellent, albeit of monstrous size. To the article, large sizes helped us break ice in the year 95 when they shot from the pole. Amers never dreamed of. Their complexes cannot shoot from these latitudes.
              3. +2
                3 October 2017 23: 32
                Quote: Alexey RA
                even the USSR did not pull out the construction of a full-fledged base station for the 941 project RPKSN.

                Where did you get this?
                18 dIPL was perfectly located in the Big Shovel, though there was only one crane for loading the P-39. And this was the bottleneck, except for the fact that there was simply no second loading point, even at 19 pier in Vaeng.
                1. 0
                  4 October 2017 12: 32
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  18 diPL was perfectly located in the Big Shovel, though the crane for loading the R-39 was one.

                  That is, the KSPR in Nerpichy was put into operation? And the railway was used to transport the P-39? And the berths provided the SSBN with everything that was laid in them under the project?
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  And this was the bottleneck, except for the fact that there was simply no second loading point, even at pier 19 in Vaeng.

                  EMNIP, the second KDP-125 was (and is) in Severodvinsk.
        2. +4
          3 October 2017 13: 00
          Quote: Mik13
          How is it not? But what is this if not a flaw? Fun feature?

          and the impossibility of tridents for a volley launch full of BC - what? Dignity?!
          :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
          Kills the competence of "esaPerdov" VO, especially liberophiles ...
        3. +1
          4 October 2017 12: 06
          Quote: Mik13
          How is it not? But what is this if not a flaw? Fun feature?
          I think if the Makeyevites could master the dry start for Sineva, they would do it. The military would be delighted.

          A dry start implies the presence of additional differential tanks and associated pumping equipment on the submarine, which to some extent complicates the design of the submarine. The disadvantage of a wet start is some noise when filling missile silos. It is impossible to change anything at pr 667, and there is no need, when patrolling a submarine in the area of ​​responsibility of our submarine forces (i.e., off our coasts) it is practically impossible to hear how water gurgles (quite quietly).
    2. 0
      3 October 2017 15: 07
      Quote: Mik13
      Here is the “Mace" and it makes sense to compare with the "Trident" in terms of weight efficiency.


      And the Mace also does not reach Trident II.
      A significant plus is the use of 6 individually maneuvering BBs. But in the 10-BB variant, the means to overcome missile defense can give a high chance of overcoming.
    3. +3
      4 October 2017 13: 10
      Quote: Mik13
      At the same time, the liquid Sineva has such a number of shortcomings (for example, a “wet" start),

      there is no connection m / a solid propellant rocket engine and rocket engine on the issue: "wet" or "dry" start
      The bottom line is that a wet start is easier and cheaper.
      Threat. and solid rocket motor cannot provide
      in throttled mode (at partial power) and at this low power it goes relatively smoothly, according to a special program. In the throttled thrust mode of the engine of the first stage, the rocket leaves the mine, passes the underwater launch section

      among Americans it’s a missile ejection subsystem, part of the Mk35 mod 1
      we have a powder gas generator of the cavity formation system and PAD, located on the bottom of the rocket shaft in the cavity of the nozzle of the first stage engine
      Quote: mark1
      With the wet method, it is easier to keep the submarine at a given depth)

      this is not true
      40-60 tons of mass that "flew" for the nuclear submarine is nonsense
      The exit in a gas bubble, on the contrary, reduces dynamic loads on the boat structure, reduces noise and increases ship survivability

      Quote: Mik13
      then I had to do solid fuel "Mace" ...

      it was made for completely different reasons
  2. +2
    3 October 2017 08: 32
    The real breakthrough in Soviet rocket science was the creation of a single-stage ballistic missile R-21 (complex D-4),
    AND WENT IN WINTER IN SIMPLE HATS WITH HOSES WITH A Wadded Lining. And at the US level
  3. +5
    3 October 2017 08: 47
    Caught up with? Distilled! Sineve has no equal in terms of energy-mass characteristics. Another thing is that missiles with high-boiling toxic components of nirazu do not add safety to nuclear submarines.
  4. +1
    3 October 2017 10: 50
    KB Makeev has never been SKB. Inaccuracies are already in the title. Throughout its history, this company was called SKB-385 and (later) KB them. Makeeva V.P., and now called Joint-Stock Company “State Rocket Center named after Academician V.P. Makeeva
  5. 0
    3 October 2017 12: 40
    He imagined how designers of SKB Makeev are chasing Lockheed engineers. Are there no costuctors in Lockheed? Or there are no engineers in SKB Makeev?
    1. +5
      3 October 2017 13: 07
      Quote: fider
      Designers SKB Makeeva chasing Lockheed engineers

      ... I suppose that running / skiing, as well as in other sports, the Miass-Ural people will be a cut above the freaks of Lokhid;)))))))))))))))
    2. +2
      3 October 2017 13: 40
      Quote: fider
      He introduced how designers of SKB Makeev are chasing Lockheed engineers.

      ... with the Blue at the ready. smile
      1. +1
        3 October 2017 20: 54
        "have fun, have fun!" awesome picture! lol
  6. +3
    3 October 2017 14: 46
    competing with such a giant in the American aviation industry as Lockheed, this company was engaged in the development and production of UGM-27 Polaris and UGM-73 Poseidon SLBMs. Thanks to the dedicated work of the designers of the Makeev Center, they created the missile systems that were installed on all Soviet strategic submarines, by the mid-1970s, they had overtaken the American counterparts manufactured by Lockheed in their effectiveness. True, they had a long way to go.


    Why this pathos syllable from the 70s? What to remember the very distant past?

    Unfortunately Trident II was never caught up.
    SLBMs with a turbojet engine, Trident II level did not reach.
    Cause?
    - a large mass of payload (insufficient miniaturization of special warheads)
    - insufficient efficiency of solid fuels (lag in the chemical industry)
    - the lack of composite structural materials with the necessary characteristics (lag in materials science) that the USSR industry would produce.

    1. +5
      3 October 2017 19: 57
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Unfortunately Trident II was never caught up.
      SLBMs with a turbojet engine, Trident II level did not reach.

      Why catch up? To say that we also have? What kind of stupidity? And the Americans are weaving along the LRE. We do not buy solid fuel engines from them, and they take the liquid propellant rocket engine from us. Another question is that we are treading water in this direction and they will catch up and overtake us. I well remember how they wanted to kill KRASMASH in the late 90s, some "specialists" URAV. If it weren’t for the then director Gupalov Viktor Kirillovich and some military representatives, now there would be neither Sineva, nor Liner, not to mention Sarmat.

      Quote: Engineer
      Another thing is that missiles with high-boiling toxic components of nirazu do not add safety to nuclear submarines.

      The complexes have already worked. Anyone remember the accident on the BDRMah through the fault of a rocket? Yes, there were none. The first “hippopotamus” spoiled the statistics, and then because of a developer error in finalizing the products. There were questions about the tests, but they were tests.
      By the way, on the "safe" D-19 complexes, decent accidents happened.
      1. +1
        3 October 2017 20: 33
        Quote: Andrey NM
        Why catch up? To say that we also have?

        so why then suffered so much with a mace?
        1. +1
          3 October 2017 21: 12
          Quote: Sharansky
          so why then suffered so much with a mace?

          But ask Solomonov Yu.S. why did he decide to "put a missile from Topol into a submarine" without experience in designing SLBMs?
          1. 0
            3 October 2017 21: 27
            Poplar itself is also an attempt to catch up with the Minuteman. So why all the fuss?
          2. 0
            4 October 2017 10: 01
            Solomonov Yu.S. grabbed from greed by a huge "Kusman", but could not choke!
            No wonder he was "under the back of his knee .." asked.
        2. +1
          4 October 2017 13: 13
          Quote: Sharansky
          so why then suffered so much with a mace?

          someone’s "bright" head (of course, theorist) came up with the idea of ​​creating a single universal strategic missile for deployment both in mines on the ground, and in mobile-mobile launchers, and in strategic submarines.
    2. +3
      3 October 2017 21: 09
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Unfortunately Trident II was never caught up

      In what sense? Didn't make the same good solid rocket? Perhaps yes. But why was this necessary in principle if our liquid rockets had better flight characteristics than Trident II?
      1. +1
        3 October 2017 22: 49
        Then what matters is not only in the performance characteristics.
      2. +1
        4 October 2017 13: 18
        Quote: DenZ
        But why was this necessary, in principle, if

        -There are new missiles that have nothing to put on, and there are new boats that have nothing to arm.
        - longer prelaunch time, noise
        -unification (logistics and cost)
        -security (logistics, operation, disposal)
    3. +6
      4 October 2017 00: 30
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      SLBMs with a turbojet engine, Trident II level did not reach. Cause?
      - a large mass of payload (insufficient miniaturization of special warheads)

      The combat blocks are as tiny as the ones of the am. But we also include the KSP ABM with heavy LCs in combat equipment. But if you defeat weakly protected targets, you can load only BBs without a PCB.
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      - insufficient efficiency of solid fuels (lag in the chemical industry)
      We do not have what you are talking about - “solid fuels”. There are mixed, fifth generation with high energy efficiency. Based on butadiene.
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      - the lack of composite structural materials with the necessary characteristics (lag in materials science) that the USSR industry would produce.

      And is it nothing that the body of the Mace is “woven” from carbonate fiber?
      The body of the rocket stages is made of composite materials using aramid fiber of high strength, which allows you to increase the pressure in the combustion chamber and get a higher momentum.
      The mace has an acceleration 3 times greater than Sineva, a quasi-ballistic trajectory, can fly along a flat trajectory, which reduces flight time to the United States to 15 minutes, there are also shunting engines and the ability to fly at hypersonic speeds, which makes it a nightmare for Americans.
      So, not everything is as bad as it may seem to some.
      1. +5
        4 October 2017 06: 08
        The flat trajectory on the 37th car has been implemented for a very long time. Mace has an advantage only in a shorter active area. In the video I watched the mace of the mace being cooked in an argon chamber. It is interesting how the fastening of the bottom to the shell is ensured, the materials are heterogeneous. On maneuvering: on a liquid-propellant rocket engine, thrust and thrust vector control is easier to implement, it’s like pushing or releasing gas on a machine, if simplified. Regarding hypersound, etc., all “heads” enter the atmosphere at speeds several times faster than the speed of sound. Another issue is equipping heads with maneuvering systems. Here is another point - soon the 667BDRM will go for recycling, the boats are getting old, as you don’t lick and repair them. Accordingly, “Sineva” will also leave, but what is replacing? It seems that the Makeevites were ordered to develop a new rocket. Have time? But different Chinese, Indians, etc. would be happy if their ICBMs on the submarine at least came close to the characteristics of 3M-37.
        Quote: DenZ
        But ask Solomonov Yu.S. why did he decide to "put a missile from Topol into a submarine" without experience in designing SLBMs?

        This must also be asked from Urinson and Dvorkin. Sergeyev is no longer to be asked ... Urinson is now an Israeli citizen and practically does not live in Russia. Dvorkin sharply repainted, made friends with the Americans ... Well, why did they kill the topic of rocket engines?

        Here are the recollections of one of the military representatives (I repeat already):
        “In 1999, thanks to the titanic efforts of KRASMASH General Director Viktor Gupalov, there was hope that the RSM-54U would resume production at the Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant. It was at this time that I received instructions from the head of the Naval Aviation Administration to prepare a report on the impossibility of carrying out such work with reference to that KMZ hadn’t been manufacturing rockets for several years now, and the whole cooperation was even more so. I realized that with my hands the opponents of liquid rockets want to prevent getting this order. I sent my deputies to the cooperation enterprises: one to the Urals, the other to Moscow and St. Petersburg. A few days later I had the minutes of the meetings of the leaders of these enterprises and the military academy of the Ministry of Defense with them about their readiness to start production resumption and with concrete proposals for the organization of work. That's when I sent my report, together with these protocols, to the head of the Navy URAF about readiness of Krasmash and enterprises of cooperation for the resumption of rocket production, which Paradise was later called “Sineva”. The conclusion is simple: we must serve our country and, defending the interests of the state, not be afraid of anyone. "
      2. +2
        4 October 2017 13: 39
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        And is it nothing that the body of the Mace is “woven” from carbonate fiber?

        Since the 70s, cocoon-type casings have been manufactured by winding from KM: organoplastics, carbon plastics, which have high values ​​of specific strength. The power shell is leaky and this requires the application of a layer of special material, it is necessary to organize a layer to hold the charge together with the housing. In addition, it is necessary to organize a layer that prevents the diffusion of fuel components that decompose during storage and operation of the engine. All these layers are made of rubber-like materials.
        The USSR and the Russian Federation lag behind in this matter, however, as in fuel

        Americans have clear progress

        Change in the coefficient of mass perfection of marching solid propellant rocket engines

        1-RDTT with a system of creating lateral forces;

        2-RDTT without SSB

        Change of ideal and

        real void momentum

        US solid propellant rocket engines


        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        The mace has an acceleration 3 times greater than Sineva

        what
        D-30 / R-30 / 3M-30 Mace
        Mass - 36.8 t
        First stage thrust - over 90 tons
        90 / 36,8 = 2,445
        P-29РМУ2
        Weight -40,3 tons
        Rod 100 t
        100 / 40,3 =2,481
        Where are the "woods"
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        The mace has an acceleration 3 times greater than Sineva

        fool
        about the implementation of the "flat" trajectory is generally nonsense
        as
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        there are also shunting engines and the ability to fly at hypersonic speeds,

        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        which reduces flight time to the USA to 15 minutes

        the stump is clear. if you can start launches from the Atlantic, you can keep within 12 minutes




        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        So, not everything is as bad as it may seem to some.

        according to solid propellant rocket, we are not very.
        Characteristics
        D-30 / R-30 / 3M-30 Mace talk about this and launches
        (Not just in 2007, President Putin signed a decree on adopting the Sineva missile, and serial production of the upgraded RSM-54 missile was urgently resumed at the Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant in Russia.
        Comparison of Poplar / YaRS with Minuteman -3
        ============================================
        We do not have an accelerating stage, such as SRB or, at worst, an EAP P238 type, and in the next 10 years there will be no
        1. +2
          4 October 2017 17: 34
          Quote: opus
          about the implementation of the "flat" trajectory is generally nonsense

          I can’t say for Mace, I don’t particularly follow this, but the 3M-37 could fly along a flat trajectory with some loss in range already in the early 90's. One of the reasons for this modernization was the Star Wars program. These are nuclear-pumped lasers, etc.
          You give a draft of 90 tons for one and 100 tons for another, but this is draft in the void, as far as I understand. At ground level, thrust is decently different. But the acceleration is three times? The mass of the 37th seems to have always been 40,2 tons. True, two identical products do not exist, they can differ, say, by tens of kilograms.
          There was a winding story when equipment for the production of drying equipment was purchased, if memory serves, in Germany. Something like a grain dryer.
          1. +1
            4 October 2017 17: 56
            Quote: Andrey NM
            but the 3M-37 could fly along a flat trajectory with some loss in range already in the early 90s.

            on the so-called "flat" can fly almost any.
            It’s not about the rocket, but about the equipment (BB)

            Optimal in energy consumption are trajectories with the apogee of 1000 - 1500 km. Moreover, the flight time is about 30 minutes, and the active part of the trajectory ends at an altitude of 200 - 350 km.

            Concerning the flat trajectory "Topolya-M",
            which runs almost parallel to the earth’s surface at an altitude of 200 - 250 km
            , then this is nonsense invented by journalists.
            The limiting case of such a trajectory is obtained at initial velocities v_0 = 7.65 km / s and pitch angle alpha = 0.174 degrees
            Such a flight at a range of 10 km will last (theoretically) 000 minutes
            On this trajectory warhead will fly below 50 km for more than 3 minutes.
            The heat flux will be more than 1 GW (!) Per square meter of warhead * for 3 * 60 seconds = a fantastic figure: either 10 tons of warheads are needed (ceramic, tungsten ablation), or everything will evaporate
            Quote: Andrey NM
            You bring the draft of 90 tons for one and 100 tons for the other, but this is draft in the void, as I understand it

            1. Why in the void? On the ground . The same for stage 1
            2.Data from here
            http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile
            3. If I used a void, but in fact was on the ground, then the figure would be slightly different (less), but this does not change the essence, maybe for 2 missiles
            Quote: Andrey NM
            The winding story was when equipment was purchased

            not this bike wink
            everything is easier



            From composite pressure cylinders for various purposes and sizes (from cheap fiberglass) to cylinders of high weight excellence for Roscosmos products = one step

            it's not about winding, but in chemistry (raw materials and mixtures), as well as the ability to make a multilayer charge of the CT and the introduction of capillaries of catalysts into it
            1. +1
              4 October 2017 19: 39
              Quote: opus
              on the so-called "flat" can fly almost any.

              Well, theoretically yes, I agree, but practically not. For different reasons.

              Concerning the flat trajectory "Topolya-M",
              which runs almost parallel to the earth’s surface at an altitude of 200 - 250 km, this is nonsense invented by journalists.

              I did not encounter Topol, so I read it for general development, but for Sineva, the numbers are somewhat different. If you observe the optimal flight parameters, because they will not reach the target, they will knock down all the “carrots”, and therefore they bother with the LC, flat trajectories, maneuvers. What I explain, you know better than me.
              In terms of traction, everything is correct, 100 tons is in the void, the earth is slightly less. And the specific impulse of traction is different, in the region of 280 seconds near the ground and three hundred with something in the void. Well, the thrust is divided into the main unit and the steering unit.
              1. +1
                4 October 2017 21: 28
                Quote: Andrey NM
                I did not encounter Topol, so I read it for general development, but for Sineva, the numbers are somewhat different.

                about Poplars, mostly journalists and "la-la"
                I won’t say anything about R-29RMU2, but like R-29RMU2.1
                - 12 x low power RGCH IN (so far this is prohibited under the START-3 agreement);
                - 10 x low power homing missile launcher with anti-missile defense missile defense system (a set of missile defense capabilities) / under the START-3 agreement;
                - 8 x low power homing missile defense with enhanced anti-missile defense missile defense system (a set of missile defense systems), can be used after adjusting the numerical material in control and computing systems; / under the START-3 agreement
                - 4 x medium-power homing missiles with a missile defense system (a set of missile defense systems);
                - mixed load of warheads of small and medium power with and without missile defense
                ; / in any case, no more than 4x
                START-3 : Status Active
                So, the bus simply cannot “spread and aim” these blocks at the level of 200-250 km and hang the KSP missile defense, although it all starts immediately from 150 km (but not seeding, but the correction and “aiming” of the combat stage / hemp / but not carrots)



                After separation from the booster stage, the “bus” very accurately, precisely sets its movement in the beginning space using its own powerful guidance system. Itself takes the exact path of the next warhead - its individual path.

                Then special inertialess locks are opened, holding the next detachable warhead. And not even separated, but simply now no longer connected with the stage, the warhead remains motionless to "hang" here (next to the combat stage), in complete weightlessness. The moments of her own flight began and flowed.


                Quote: Andrey NM
                In terms of traction, everything is correct, 100 tons is in the void, the earth is slightly less

                But what's the difference, the main thing is not THREE times "more acceleration"
                Quote: Andrey NM
                Well, the thrust is divided into the main unit and the steering unit.

                I wrote about the draft of the FIRST step (and this is an adder)
                1. 0
                  5 October 2017 00: 51
                  just don’t argue with idiots and there will be happiness
                2. +1
                  5 October 2017 03: 10
                  When I served, there were two options - 4 and 10. Under the contract, there were 4 pieces. The "bourgeois" came and controlled. Even the "top" was pulled off at the pier to watch. But that was in the early 90s. Like now, I don’t know. My "steamer" is now under repair. This year marks 30 years of launching. The people will meet ....
                  Over the years and modifications, some characteristics of the steps have changed for the better, but not very much, but the "top" can be changed decently.
                3. +1
                  5 October 2017 06: 43
                  In general, thrust and thrust vector control on a liquid propellant rocket engine is much simpler than on a solid propellant rocket engine, it reduces or increases the flow of components and that’s all. And the engines spin on the universal joints. And on solid propellant rocket engines, nozzle compaction, inert gas injection, and rudders, and anti-nozzle were also fenced. And even with American technologies and developments, an approximately similar rocket in terms of performance is one and a half times heavier. And this entails the need to increase the size of the carrier, ceteris paribus, this is the stock of buoyancy, and the power plant, and much more.
                  And on the 955 draft question. They say that the Mace is simpler and easier than Sineva. And the complex should be easier. Like and products the same amount. Where does Boreya have a displacement of as many as 24000 tons? This is more than the BDRM for 6000 tons. And on the surface, the difference is 3000 tons. It seems that the elemental base is new, and there are not striking differences in torpedo armament, and the crew is almost one and a half times smaller, the reactor and GTZA are one each ... OHIO carries 24 pieces of over 60 tons each product. Displacement of 18700 tons. You can talk about different stocks of buoyancy, about different schemes of the hulls. It still doesn’t fit. The British submarine Wangard with 16 mines displacement in the region of 16000 tons. With the French, with heavier 16 products, the displacement does not go beyond 15000 tons.
                  It seems to me that Borey in its current form is not even stomping on the spot, but a real step back.

                  I wrote about the draft of the FIRST step (and this is an adder)

                  Yes I understand. 100 tons is the total thrust of the first stage in the void.
      3. 0
        5 October 2017 00: 50
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        But we also include KSP PRO with heavy LCs in combat equipment
        and they are stupid and listen to zadornov. Let's get more fresh tales!
  7. +1
    4 October 2017 00: 28
    And that's great
  8. 0
    4 October 2017 18: 53
    Did they lag behind?
    1. 0
      5 October 2017 13: 40
      Yes, they run towards each other, as if, if anything, and their products fly ... laughing