Military Review

New technology for Strategic Rocket Forces

35
In the current state armament program, a special place is reserved for the renewal of strategic rocket forces (RVSN). As follows from open information, before 2020, it is planned to start mass production of existing projects and develop several new ones. At the same time, the RVSN is being equipped with various techniques of existing models. The special priority of updating the rocket forces is due to their quantitative and qualitative share in the Russian nuclear forces. Soldiers and officers of the Strategic Missile Forces are currently responsible for two-thirds of the country's existing strategic arms carriers and about half of the nuclear warheads. As a result, the Strategic Missile Forces are the main element of the nuclear deterrent force.

RT-2PM2 Topol-M (photo by Vitaly Kuzmin, http://vitalykuzmin.net)


Within the framework of the current State Program, several large units are currently being re-equipped at once. For the first time after the collapse of the Soviet Union, our country had such an opportunity. Not so long ago, the 54-I Guards Missile Order of the Kutuzov division, deployed in the city of Teikovo, received new missiles and related equipment. Now this unit has missile systems RT-2PM2 Topol-M and PC-24 Yars. Both new missile systems, among other things, are interesting because they are versatile and can be used in both mine and mobile launchers. In addition, the Topol-M and Yars were the first domestic land-based intercontinental missiles created after the collapse of the USSR.

Not only Teykov's division is equipped with Topol-M missiles. Not less than fifty missile mines of this complex are available to the 60 of the Taman Rocket Order of the October Revolution of the Red Banner Division (CATU Svetly, Saratov Region). In 1997, it was this division of the Strategic Missile Forces that became the first unit to receive new missiles. Since then, Topol-M has become the main intercontinental rocket of the Russian strategic missile forces. So, for example, in the 33-th Guards Rocket Army (Omsk), three out of four divisions are equipped with RT-2PM2 missiles. As for the remaining unit (62-I missile of the Red Banner Division), it has missiles of the Р-36М family, which will soon be replaced by Yars.

It should be noted that strategic rocket forces must be equipped not only with modern weapons. The very essence of this kind of troops implies the presence of a large number of assistive technology for different purposes. Over the past and current year, the Strategic Missile Forces units received more than 260 units of automotive vehicles. Just over a hundred vehicles manufactured by the Ulyanovsk and Kama car plants went to serve last year, while the rest went to the troops in the past months of 2012. Most of the vehicles delivered this year are vehicles for various purposes, assembled on the basis of a KAMAZ-53501 truck. In addition, this year the Kamsky Automobile Plant produced a major overhaul and modernization of two dozen vehicles based on KAMAZ-43114. Probably, several more cars will be modernized in the future.

Another class of auxiliary equipment, which this year received the Strategic Missile Forces, is engineering vehicles. This year, the rocket forces received about twenty bulldozers, trackers, truck cranes, earth-moving machines, etc. In the future, an increase in the rate of supply of such equipment is expected due to the need to update the auxiliary fleet. Also over the past months of this year, the RVSN engineering units received more than 45 tons of various engineering equipment, from shovels to masking complexes. Recently, 54-i divisions were transferred six engineering and masking machines (MIOM) 15М69. These machines allow you to simulate the signs of movement and parking of mobile launchers of the complexes "Topol", "Topol-M" or "Yars". To do this, each MIOM carries special graders that destroy the trail of a machine with a launcher or create traces similar to those of a combat vehicle with a missile. If necessary, MIOM can use special containers with false targets that have the same thermal and radar “appearance” as real launchers. One machine 15М69 can thus simulate a division of six combat vehicles with missiles. Another important and useful in practice capability of the MIOM machine is to measure the characteristics of bridges and determine the possibility of passage of launchers. For this machine 15М69 carry a set of measuring electronic equipment, as well as special retractable frames. The latter allow you to determine whether the machine with the launcher to travel somewhere or not.

New technology for Strategic Rocket Forces
MIOM 15М69 in Teikov missile compound, July 2012 g. (Http://pressa-rvsn.livejournal.com)


Deliveries to the Strategic Missile Forces of new weapons and equipment continue and in the future are likely to pick up the pace. At the same time, in the coming years, it is reported that not only new models of automotive and engineering equipment will be created, but also new missiles. This means that the bulk of domestic nuclear forces will retain their combat potential.


On the materials of the sites:
http://mil.ru/
http://redstar.ru/
http://lenta.ru/
http://ria.ru/
Author:
35 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lantau
    Lantau 23 November 2012 09: 07
    +4
    Very good and positive article.
    As they say - more missiles, good and different! wink
  2. Ascetic
    Ascetic 23 November 2012 10: 15
    +4
    Another class of auxiliary equipment that the Strategic Missile Forces received this year is engineering vehicles. This year, missile forces received about twenty bulldozers, track-laying machines, truck cranes, earth-moving machinery, etc. In the future, an increase in the rate of supply of such equipment is expected due to the need to update the auxiliary fleet. Also, over the past months of this year, the engineering units of the Strategic Missile Forces received more than 45 tons of various engineering equipment, from shovels to camouflage complexes. Recently, the 54th Division was transferred to six engineering support and camouflage vehicles (MIOM) 15M69.


    At last! We can only envy the good people kindly. How at one time we lacked this equipment. I remember manually pockets for aggregates in a clearing. In the division of all the equipment was MIOBD based on the Ural-4320, two KAMAZ and MTLB in the NZ and all. In the regiment there was a BWO, so there is also a sparse BAT, two graders, I don’t remember exactly the IIR, I just know that it’s disastrously little.
    The main tool of engineering support, as always, is a crowbar and a shovel with an ax

    The supply of engineering support and camouflage vehicles to the Teykov missile compound, which began in 2009, entailed the introduction of new concealment and imitation techniques used by personnel on alert on mobile missile systems. This, in turn, allowed to reduce dozens of times human labor to complete these tasks.
    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic 23 November 2012 10: 23
      +2
      Engineering support and camouflage vehicle (MIOM) of the Strategic Missile Forces engineering units. The unit is designed and manufactured by the Central Design Bureau "Titan" (Volgograd). Performs its tasks as part of the Yars or Topol-M PGRK, as well as independently. MIOM 15M69 was put into service and since 2009 has been supplied to the Strategic Missile Forces. By July 2012, the engineering divisions of the Teikovo missile formation were fully equipped with such units. In the future MIOMs will enter the Irkutsk and Novosibirsk missile formations of the Strategic Missile Forces

      1. Karish
        Karish 23 November 2012 10: 35
        +1
        Quote: Ascetic
        Machine for engineering support and camouflage (MIOM) of engineering parts of the Strategic Missile Forces

        So the question of the amateur, in order to sweep the traces of Topol, was it necessary to create a separate machine? And it was impossible to attach such garbage (scraper) to the Topol tractor itself? He drove by himself, * hesitated *?
        By the way, is the machine itself a new development? Or is it new only in this device?
        1. borisst64
          borisst64 23 November 2012 11: 14
          +2
          I think that the scraper is the most primitive part of this machine and only its specialists know all its capabilities.
        2. Ascetic
          Ascetic 23 November 2012 19: 18
          +3
          Quote: Karish
          By the way, is the machine itself a new development? Or is it new only in this device?


          In comparison with the Ural-4320-based MIOBD, what else should it be?

          Quote: Ascetic
          The unit is designed and manufactured by the Central Design Bureau "Titan" (Volgograd)

          It is called the Unit 15M69.
          START-3 treaty defines a positional area for mobile missile systems - 50 square kilometers. But the exact coordinates are not indicated. As Americans develop rapid global strike system - they already have more than 4 missiles without a nuclear warhead; such missiles can strike at our PGRK. That our complexes did not fall under this blow, it is necessary to mask them


          Quote: Karish
          So the question of the amateur, in order to sweep the traces of Topol, was it necessary to create a separate machine? And it was impossible to attach such garbage (scraper) to the Topol tractor itself? He drove by himself, * hesitated *?


          The battle order of the militia regiment on the march makes this method inappropriate. More rational at the end of the column to let cleaner, which sweeps all traces. Moreover, in practice, the main part of the IBE passes quite along civilian roads where no notice is required. Suppose the Americans have scouted all the training positions of the rdn (and as a rule there were 3-4 of them now, with the availability of new equipment, it can be increased). In this case, they will have to determine which of them has a real division or cover all four with a quick global strike. But the combat positions of the PU never occupy in peacetime. moreover, these are not pre-equipped places, but completely ordinary objects — a dance floor in a holiday home or a village outskirts, for example.
  3. anchonsha
    anchonsha 23 November 2012 11: 07
    0
    We are slowly growing, which pleases. If only good specialists for such weapons learned to cook faster.
  4. Enjoy
    Enjoy 23 November 2012 11: 17
    +1
    Quote: Karish
    So the question of the amateur, in order to sweep the traces of Topol, was it necessary to create a separate machine? And it was impossible to attach such garbage (scraper) to the Topol tractor itself? He drove by himself, * hesitated *? By the way, is the machine itself a new development? Or is it new only in this device?

    So now this scraper can create imitation of "Poplar" tracks far from "Poplar" itself bully wink
    1. Karish
      Karish 23 November 2012 17: 10
      +2
      Quote: Enjoy
      So now this scraper can create imitation of "Poplar" tracks far from "Poplar" itself
  5. ism_ek
    ism_ek 23 November 2012 11: 28
    +1
    As far as I understand, we are talking about restored used equipment.
    The only plant in Russia producing wheel tractors (Kurgan Wheel Tractor Plant) was sold for scrap.
  6. Flooding
    Flooding 23 November 2012 13: 02
    0
    Rocketeers, your opinion is interesting. How do you like such a bash - Voivode on Yars? It is clear that the R-36M already has all the deadlines. But why the development of rocket technology is moving towards reducing its impact capabilities.
    The voivode can carry up to 10 RFIDs with a capacity of up to 750 ct each.
    Yars is only 6 to 150 or 4 to 300 ct.
    And the range is less.
    Another weight category? Good.
    Then you can’t talk about replacing the Governor. There is no complete replacement for this rocket, as I understand it.
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 23 November 2012 13: 35
      0
      http://topwar.ru/5694-preemnica-satany-poluchit-15-yadernyh-boegolovok.html
      1. Flooding
        Flooding 23 November 2012 14: 04
        0
        Yes, I understand. There are some two developments. But when will it be? And the Voivode is still a maximum of three or four years on duty.
        1. ism_ek
          ism_ek 23 November 2012 15: 00
          0
          Quote: Flood
          And the Voivode is still a maximum of three or four years on duty.
          Are you a telepath?
          1. Flooding
            Flooding 23 November 2012 16: 12
            0
            "To date, the missile system with the most powerful heavy missile of the strategic nuclear forces RS-20V Voevoda has exceeded the guaranteed service life by one and a half times, having stood on alert for 24 years," said Colonel Vadim Koval, an official representative of the Strategic Missile Forces. - Together with organizations industry, work is underway to extend the service life of this missile to 30 years, which will make it possible to maintain this complex in the combat strength of the Strategic Missile Forces until the end of this decade "

            On my own, I note that 24 years, judging by the publications for 2008 and 2009, served a later modification.
            Early modification currently has at least 28 years of life.
            No telepathy and, all the more, boltology.
  7. The comment was deleted.
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 23 November 2012 15: 11
      -2
      Quote: rudolff
      And if until recently Solomonov’s ideology prevailed, then after problems with Bulava and his removal from the post of director of the Institute of Heat Engineering, the position of his opponents and, in particular, Makeev’s design bureau prevailed
      And where is Solomon? Americans have long switched to solid rockets. Any rocket launcher will tell you that a combat missile must be solid propellant.
      We have much less experience in creating solid-fuel rockets than the Americans. We will not be able to quickly create a heavy solid-fuel rocket. Now they are creating an analogue of Satan, only based on a modern elemental base.
      Contrasting the Institute of Heat Engineering and Design Makeev’s Design Bureau is stupid. They have long been working in one bundle.
      1. I think so
        I think so 23 November 2012 15: 37
        +1
        So the Americans simply could NOT at one time make such effective and long-standing liquid-propellant rockets as they did in the USSR ... and were forced to take the path of less efficient and weaker solid-fuel rockets. And now Solomonov, from his stupidity (?), Has made all these achievements in front of the ignorant current Russian leadership and has driven the whole country along a dead end (to the delight of the Americans, they know the price of solid fuel ...).
        1. postman
          postman 23 November 2012 18: 40
          +2
          Quote: I think so
          So the Americans simply could not at one time be able to make such effective and long-standing armament of liquid missiles which they did in the USSR ...

          You write nonsense.
          LGM-25C Titan II (aerosin-50 - 50% hydrazine and UDMH - and nitrogen tetroxide)
      2. Ascetic
        Ascetic 23 November 2012 17: 42
        +1
        Quote: ism_ek
        Contrasting the Institute of Heat Engineering and Design Makeev’s Design Bureau is stupid. They have long been working in one bundle.


        The dispute is between MIIT (Solomonov) and NPO Mechanical Engineering (Efremov). So
        The new START Treaty has two determining parameters: it is the quota for the number of carriers (700 operational missiles and 100 more in warehouses) and the number of nuclear warheads (1550) that can be deployed on them. As of September 20, 2012, the Russian strategic nuclear forces (SNF) contained 442 deployed strategic carriers capable of carrying 2159 nuclear warheads. Until 2020, it is planned to dispose of 399 ICBMs and SLBMs and 260 silos / SPU, both from those already in storage and those that are expected to be decommissioned. According to the agreement signed in May 2002, The United States and Russia should reduce their nuclear arsenals by two-thirds by January 31, 2012 - to the level of 1700-2200 warheads on each sideThat is, the debate is about which carriers these 700 rockets should be on and how to place 2200 warheads on them. That’s basically all. And here we must proceed from the fact that the Americans completely changed their strategy, adopting BSU principle (quick global strike)
        On April 11, 2010, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates indicated that the US was already capable of delivering a quick global strike. [6] Also on April 8, 2010, a new START treaty was signed, establishing new, even lower limits on the number of ballistic missiles and warheads. It does not distinguish between conventional and nuclear weapons, which means that the numbers of any PGS ballistic missiles and warheads set a new limit. Despite this, the US State Department said that this would not interfere with PGS deployment plans, as currently no limits are planned
        -Wiki
        And our strategic nuclear forces inherited from the USSR sharpened that at that time such a sudden disarming blow was impossible. and the war was supposed to go on as if increasing, respectively, in the strategic nuclear forces there are four degrees of combat readiness — constant, increased, military danger, complete.
        Now, according to the Americans, they are using BSU with high-precision weapons (both nuclear and conventional), and that which will not be destroyed and take off after the strike will be intercepted by a global missile defense system. Therefore, we have begun work on creating a new configuration of strategic nuclear forces and aerospace defense systems (SPRN stations) for countering these plans without going beyond START-3
        1. Ascetic
          Ascetic 23 November 2012 18: 05
          +2
          Therefore, the main thing in this dispute is find the optimal composition of the future grouping of our strategic missiles. Understand the principle of its application. It must be understood here that we cannot be the first to speak of any nuclear strikes. This is absolute suicide. This is spelled out in all of our doctrinal documents. In matters of nuclear deterrence, we can only plan a retaliatory (retaliatory) nuclear strike. In doing so, we must have sufficient composition of our strategic nuclear forceswhat is called for all occasions... The main argument against heavy multiply-charged liquid-propellant missiles ("Voevoda") is that they stand in the mines and in case of a sudden strike they will be destroyed by the WTO without having time to take off ((according to the Russian-American START Treaty, the coordinates of all our mines were transferred to the Americans, theirs to us) . Moreover, the probability of destruction of our mine by a nuclear unit is almost 90%. But this is not so, there is data from field tests confirming that it is far from easy to destroy a missile in a mine. In the 80s, in Semipalatinsk Operation Argon
          At the range were specially built launchers of all types of our mine missiles. They put the cars themselves. They were twice tested full-scale nuclear explosions. The third time they tried to hit ordinary explosives, the equivalent explosion power of which corresponded to nuclear. In the mines, even the paint did not sprinkle. And then the missiles were successfully launched.
          For effective destruction of mine missiles, it is necessary to undermine the ammunition not in a hundred meters from the mine, but in a dozen. Technically, this is impossible. (QUO American ICBMs hundreds of meters) If we talk about high-precision weapons, then the accuracy of its action should be even higher. But here it must be borne in mind that the mines are in the depths of our territory and we have technical means that can prevent this.
          Therefore, we should by no means refuse heavy rockets, especially since they are the most effective means of breaking through the global missile defense, especially if the Americans create a space strike group. I already wrote about this in the comment on the article Global missile defense system - problems of the dialogue between Russia and America here
          1. Ascetic
            Ascetic 23 November 2012 18: 42
            +2
            July 5, 1981 The planned volume of tests of PU 15P716 by seismic loading by an air shock wave (tests "Argon-4" PSK-III) was successfully completed. The seismic sensors registered the design loading, while the foundations F-1 and F-2 of the building structure (the foundation for the installer's supports) were shifted, the base element was destroyed, and one RBU input failed. There were no destructions, deformations on elements and equipment of silos. In 1984 PU 15P716 was tested for increased mechanical stress. Launcher equipment passed the test.


            My webpage
            1. Valboro
              Valboro 23 November 2012 23: 02
              +1
              Dear Ascetic. I always read your comments very carefully. It feels like you have access to some information on rocket technology, but unfortunately it is quite superficial.
              There were three "argons". The fourth test simulated an air explosion, or rather its emitting component. Almost all types of launchers were tested with simulated missiles and, of course, this did not start. The test results were just bad. Only "100" launchers were recognized as suitable for launches with reservations. (The industry was very happy about this and began to demand an increase in security to 300-500).
              It's a shame another. According to some information, all materials on the Argons and Shagans were destroyed as unnecessary. At 37, they would have shot him.
              As for stationary launchers, they do not solve their tasks in a retaliatory strike. They are not for this.
      3. gispanec
        gispanec 23 November 2012 22: 59
        -1
        Quote: ism_ek
        Any rocket launcher will tell you that a combat missile must be solid propellant.

        Are you a rocket launcher ??? ..... I doubt ..... and where such self-confidence comes from ....
  8. gregor6549
    gregor6549 23 November 2012 15: 19
    +1
    I don’t know how to whom, but I am pleased that the basis of the modern strategic nuclear forces of Russia "rolls" on products worked by my fellow countrymen in Minsk. Not only bulba and flax can grow there.
  9. The comment was deleted.
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 23 November 2012 16: 10
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      As for the advantages of solid rockets, this is a very controversial thesis.

      "It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines." Satan is 150 tons of highly toxic, highly corrosive and explosive fuel. RS-18 - slightly less than 100 tons.
      Fuel life is several years. About once every three years - you need to get the rocket out, drain the fuel. Where do you order these thousands of tons of nitric acid and heptyl? Who now, as before, will allow him to be drained into the nearest river?
      All these operations are carried out in a chemical protection suit.
      Again, from the fact that the rocket is constantly being dragged, it is better not to start flying. Experimental launch - unsuccessful - all missilemen are "on top".
      And you also ask, "Honestly, missilemen don't like liquid-fueled rockets?"
      But I don’t have any idea how submariners swim with liquid fuel rockets. Suicides - pure water. Well, they are floating in a hug with a nuclear reactor :)

      Quote: rudolff
      You can learn about how they work together from Solomonov himself.
      Our missile industry has degraded so much that neither MIT nor Makeev’s design bureau can create a separate missile.
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 23 November 2012 18: 51
        +1
        ism_ek,

        All fourth generation complexes have ampouled fuel tanks(including "Sineva"). They are refueled once when placed in the mine on combat duty or at the factory. For some reason, everyone is silent about the fact that 10-15 Proton launch vehicles are launched annually, which are fueled by the same heptyl and amyl. Each of them, by the way, contains 600 tons. And what about the Dnepr launch vehicles, which have 2-4 launches per year? Each of them contains 200 tons.

        Quote: ism_ek
        Our missile industry has degraded so much that neither MIT nor Makeev’s design bureau can create a separate missile.


        In the USSR, for example, an extreme heavy rocket was created by three companies - Yuzhmash, MIT. And NPO Mashinostroeniya. A prototype was manufactured at Yuzhmash and the launch from the Plesetsk cosmodrome was scheduled for December 27, 1991. The launch was canceled, the project was canceled. I hope to explain the reason is not necessary?
        1. ism_ek
          ism_ek 23 November 2012 20: 33
          0
          Quote: Ascetic
          For some reason, everyone is silent about the fact that 10-15 Proton launch vehicles are launched annually, which are fueled by the same heptyl and amyl. Each of them, by the way, contains 600 tons. And what about the Dnepr launch vehicles, which have 2-4 launches per year? Each of them contains 200 tons.

          The proton is refueled in stationary conditions at the cosmodrome, and not in the field. The naval missiles are fueled at the plant, because the submarine can swim "to the plant."
          ps "Dnepr", "Satan" and "Voevoda" are one rocket.
  10. Garik
    Garik 23 November 2012 15: 53
    0
    It all depends on the possibilities of delivering the payload to the destination point and precisely the opposition to the enemy missile defense system. And conclusions on replacing "Satan" should be drawn with knowledge of the technical solutions on this issue. Which of course, and I hope so, will remain secret. My humble opinion is that if the game had not been worth the candle, then "Satan" would have remained in its place. Unless, of course, this is another grandiose $$$ laundering scam.
  11. The comment was deleted.
    1. webdog
      webdog 23 November 2012 17: 04
      0
      rudolff, you are absolutely right!
      someone said above that creating a solid fuel carrier is heavier is a wrong statement.
      solid fuel cracks in the meantime, but it cannot be replaced, it is pressed and partly even carries a load when removing it helping the main structure. in short, it is a structural element of a rocket.
      for liquid media I won’t even repeat myself, for the reason that everything has already been said simply and clearly ...

      PS. the specific impulse (and this is the most important criterion of the carrier) in the LRE is much higher.

      RTTT:
      1. ism_ek
        ism_ek 23 November 2012 17: 40
        0
        Quote: webdog
        solid fuel cracks in the meantime,

        The Topol rocket has been on combat duty since 1985. During this time, 91 test runs were made. All launches were successful.
      2. postman
        postman 23 November 2012 19: 04
        +1
        Quote: webdog
        the fuel is cracking

        The problem has long been solved when using a thermo container (TPK)
        Dap and the term is not so short: the warranty period for 8K98P missiles is 15 years / (this is "grandfather")
        Quote: webdog
        but you can’t replace it

        Why? SRB- WAS REUSABLE

        CARRY ON "EQUIPMENT" WITH A NEW "CHECK", after starting


        ONLY FOR GUARANTEED STORAGE LIFE of 15-25 years there is no point in this.
    2. ism_ek
      ism_ek 23 November 2012 17: 34
      0
      Quote: rudolff
      Firstly, modern VT rockets have capsule tanks, i.e. Fill once at the factory and for the entire period of operation.

      The photo shows the Refueling Strela / UR-100N / RS-18 / SS-19 (Stiletto) fuel station. This is the last Soviet ground-based ballistic missile. We have no newer ones. The photo was taken from the site of OAO VPK NPO Mashinostroyeniya.
      1. Valboro
        Valboro 23 November 2012 23: 08
        +1
        An arrow is a space variant of the 35. And they drained the fuel there, and then refueled, since it is impossible to work with the space warhead on a filled carrier. I know this photo and this launch
  12. The comment was deleted.
    1. postman
      postman 23 November 2012 20: 11
      0
      Quote: rudolff
      The FAA were extremely hazardous to operate. Fuel with an oxidizing agent, in view of their aggressivenessIt was impossible to store in rocket tanks.

      V-2: С2Н5ОН (alcohol) 75% + О2 (oxygen) + peroxide for TNA, what’s aggressive here?
      a problem with the boiling point of oxygen -182,98 ° C at atmospheric pressure, but since it is in a "locked" tank - evaporation -> more pressure -> higher boiling point, and so on until the critical temperature (-1130C) is above which they will not be liquid under any pressure.
      P-1 = 15 minutes in the charged state on the database (if you haven’t forgotten), with a total time of rocket preparation for launch - 6 hours.
  13. The comment was deleted.
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 23 November 2012 19: 07
      -1
      Quote: rudolff
      I will only add that new developments on liquid fuel topics are available in relation to sea-based missiles.

      We discussed ground-based missiles here. How sea rockets are served - I don’t know. I have not been taught this. Purely from general knowledge I can answer.
      Sea and land missiles have different specifics. Marine rocket is lighter than ground. She has a shorter range.
      The submarine itself can sail to the factory, where they will carry out all the necessary manipulations with missiles. You can’t build your own factory at every surface mine. Mines are located in remote areas. You can’t bring a two-hundred-ton rocket there. Fill the rocket in place.
      In any case, Sineva is not taken from Krasnoyarsk across the country with full tanks. With railway missiles, a dash struck, no one else suffers from such stupidity.
      Well, in conclusion, I want to note that the requirement to switch to solid fuel comes from the military. They are more comfortable working with solid rockets. It’s not worth pecking at all Solomon’s.
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 23 November 2012 22: 54
        +2
        Quote: ism_ek
        Well, in conclusion, I want to note that the requirement to switch to solid fuel comes from the military. They are more comfortable working with solid rockets.


        Here it is also necessary to take into account the missed weight of the missiles. That is, the ability to carry a large number of warheads and false targets to overcome a promising missile defense.
        If the Americans nevertheless deploy the space segment of the strike missile defense system, then such a heavy missile in a retaliatory oncoming strike will simply declassify it, clearing the way for the Topol. I already wrote about the vulnerability of mines above
        Solid fuel engines are used in cases where the main requirements are simplicity, ease of maintenance, quick start and high power with a small amount. The first American ballistic missiles used liquid fuel, but since the 1960s, there has been a transition to solid fuel, which was associated with an improvement in its production technology. Solid propellant rocket engine
        The solid fuel mixture most commonly used in the USA is ammonium perchlorate as an oxidizing agent and aluminum powder as a fuel with a polymer binder, nitrile butadiene rubber (the Russian designation SKN is synthetic nitrile rubber). Iron oxide powder is added to control the burning rate. Mixtures of these components in various proportions are used for space vehicles, ballistic and tactical missiles. These fuels have a specific impulse from 280 to 300 s, depending on the composition of the mixture. The combustion products of such solid propellant solid propellants contain hydrogen chloride and aluminum oxide particles.
        The main disadvantage of solid-fuel engines is the practical the impossibility of regulating thrust during flight, as well as the difficulty of turning off the engine. In some solid propellant motors, traction is cut off by opening holes in the front of the engine. When the openings open (usually this happens with the help of special squibs), the pressure inside the engine drops and the burning intensity decreases accordingly. In addition, reverse thrust occurs, opposite to the normal thrust of the main nozzle, and rocket acceleration ceases
        The most efficient rockets run on liquid fuel, because the chemical energy of liquid components is greater than solid, and their products of combustion have a lower molecular weight. Therefore, space rockets are all on LRE
        The main advantage of the rocket engine is the ability to turn off, restart and regulate traction. which means greater potential for maneuvering in the active sector and beyond.
        The main drawback is the complexity of production because they contain parts rotating at high speed. The slightest inaccuracy in the manufacture of rotating parts can lead to vibration and destruction. Even if the engine is correctly balanced, the interaction of the THA with the combustion process can cause vibration at a frequency close to the speed of the hydrogen pump. Engine vibrations occur in certain directions, not randomly. With such instability, the level of vibration can become so large that it will require shutting down the engine in order to avoid damage to it.
        1. Ascetic
          Ascetic 23 November 2012 22: 55
          +1
          A tempting alternative to solid propellant rocket engines and rocket engines is [b] hybrid engine idea,
          A hybrid engine uses solid fuel and a liquid oxidizing agent, such as liquid oxygen or nitrogen tetroxide. This approach allows you to half simplify the fuel supply system while maintaining the inherent compactness of the solid propellant rocket motor. Since the oxidizing agent and the fuel are stored separately, cracks in the solid fuel charge of the fuel are less dangerous than in a traditional solid propellant solid propellant rocket, which simplifies its manufacture. However, despite significant research efforts, especially in the 1980s, this idea has not found wide application. The main problem was the insufficiently stable and efficient combustion process.]
        2. ism_ek
          ism_ek 23 November 2012 23: 39
          0
          Quote: Ascetic
          The most efficient rockets run on liquid fuel,

          No one disputes this with you, but if you follow your logic, it may turn out that the Royal R-7 is best suited for the Strategic Missile Forces :)
          Regarding the need for a heavy military missile ... Will it be cheaper than two ... three light? Americans are now actively experimenting with hypersound. The accuracy of warheads is increasing. I'm afraid that the mines of heavy rockets will soon become easy prey.
          Even we have had cases when the warheads hit the Kura test site. And these are ordinary missiles removed from combat duty.
  14. Rus2012
    Rus2012 2 December 2012 12: 13
    0
    Quote: ism_ek
    Quote: rudolff Firstly, modern VT rockets have capsule tanks, i.e. They are filled once at the factory and for the entire period of operation. The photo shows the Refueling LV Strela / UR-100Н / RS-18 / SS-19 (Stiletto) This is the last Soviet ground-based ballistic missile. We have no newer ones. The photo was taken from the site of OAO VPK NPO Mashinostroyeniya.

    Quote: ValBORO
    An arrow is a space variant of the 35. And they drained the fuel there, and then refueled, since it is impossible to work with the space warhead on a filled carrier. I know this photo and this launch


    You are all right - little by little! bully
    First, there are products that are actually refueled at the factory (or in the factory) and "ampouled". These are, as a rule, naval strategic and third stages or PTT buses, if they are liquid.

    And the so-called. "heavy liquid-propellant rocket engines" are refueled and ampulized after installation in the mine. Moreover, as a rule, once for the entire period of the database. Cases of pulling out and refilling are rare.

    About the use of military rockets for space ...
    Here the situation is somewhat different.
    If starts from Tyuratam, then naturally with a new gas station (and, accordingly, installation in the mine).
    If launches from the "position area" (for example, from Yasnaya), then mb. and without refueling and pulling the rocket out of the mine ... For example, if the rocket stood in the mine and must be disposed of by launch.
    1. Valboro
      Valboro 4 December 2012 01: 45
      0
      Thanks for the comments. I know about Cosmotras launches. At one time, I was among the organizers of the first space launch on the Dnieper. It was an experienced satellite weighing 350 kg of the English company SSTL.