ICBM "Sarmat" will be adopted in 2018 year

30
ICBM "Sarmat" will be adopted in 2018 year


In recent years, a peculiar tradition has appeared in the Russian Ministry of Defense. Before a holiday of one or another kind of troops, its command tells the public about the latest successes and plans for the future. Earlier this week, Colonel-General S. Karakayev, Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Missile Forces, took the floor.

The development of strategic missile forces is one of the most important tasks under the current state armament program. According to current plans, in the coming years there will have to be a radical upgrade of the RVSN equipment and armaments. In 2018, the share of new weapons and equipment should reach 80%. For this, it is supposed to continue the supply of equipment already mastered in production. In addition, several projects must be completed. Due to this, until the end of the current decade, the number of obsolete and obsolete missiles or auxiliary equipment will constantly decrease.

At the same time, however, the command of the Strategic Missile Forces and the Ministry of Defense do not intend to immediately abandon the old missiles. According to Colonel-General S. Karakayev, the Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) of the R-36М2 "Voevoda" will remain in service until the 2022 year. The ICBMs of this model, put into service in the late eighties, will continue to serve. Their number will constantly decrease and at the beginning of the next decade these missiles will be completely removed from duty.

The Russian strategy of completing and using strategic missile forces implies the simultaneous operation of two classes of rockets: heavy and light. In the light class, the Topol-M and Yars missile systems will be used in the future. In place of heavy "Voivods", removed from duty, will come new missiles "Sarmat". Adoption of this missile complex is expected in 2018-20. Thus, the production of missiles of the new model will go along with the reduction in the number of old ones, which will allow upgrading the weapons of the Strategic Missile Forces without compromising their capabilities.

The Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Missile Forces argues that the new Sarmat missile system will not yield to Voivode in terms of performance and combat effectiveness. The new rocket will be able to destroy targets at long ranges, using different flight paths. The new control system should provide high precision targeting combat units. The starting weight of the new rocket, as stated earlier, will exceed 100 tons.

The development of a new intercontinental ballistic missile "Sarmat" began at the end of the last decade. N. Solovtsov, at the time the former commander-in-chief of the Strategic Missile Forces, first spoke about the existence of a similar project in the summer of 2009. A little later, the first information appeared on the expected timeline for the completion of the project - the development was planned to be completed before 2017. Finally, in September last year, S. Karakayev spoke about plans for adopting a new ICBM. Like now, a year ago, the Ministry of Defense planned to begin purchasing new missiles in the 2018-20 years.


The hypothetical image of the early version of the ICBM project for the development of the Makeyev State Center, which could form the basis of the Sarmat design and development work, was published in 2005 in


The project "Sarmat" is being developed by a group of organizations of the defense industry, headed by the State Rocket Center. V.P. Makeev. According to some sources, the mass production of new missiles will be deployed at the Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant. For obvious reasons, such information may not be true, since the project has not yet reached even the testing stage. Last fall, reports appeared in the domestic media, according to which the Ministry of Defense reviewed the draft design of the Sarmat rocket complex and approved it, making a number of comments. Shortly thereafter, work began on a technical project. In the summer of this year, it became known that a full-scale layout was planned for 2014 year. Thus, in the course of the next few years, the first test launches can be expected.

The design, composition of the equipment and characteristics of the promising ICBM "Sarmat" remain unknown. Due to the lack of official information, various assumptions and estimates appear, based on last year's statements by Colonel-General S. Karakaev. Then he mentioned that the new rocket for the Strategic Missile Forces will have a starting weight of more than 100 tons. Based on this information, all existing assumptions are made. Apparently, the design of the Sarmat rocket will in its basic features be similar to the Voivod P-36М2. In this case, the promising ICBM will be a two-stage rocket with a stage of dilution of military units. There is reason to believe that liquid engines will be used on the Sarmat rocket. But do not forget that the official information about the technical appearance of a promising rocket is limited only by approximate information about its starting weight.

The development and construction of new heavy ICBMs will allow an equivalent replacement of existing weapons of obsolete types. The deployment of heavy-class missiles with individual-guided combat units in the context of the re-equipment of the Strategic Missile Forces is a way to radically modernize existing delivery systems. The service life of the existing Voyevoda missiles is coming to an end, which is why in the foreseeable future it is required to create a new complex with similar combat characteristics. They will be the “Sarmat”.


On the materials of the sites:
http://ria.ru/
http://interfax.ru/
http://vz.ru/
http://itar-tass.com/
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-435.html
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Eugeniy_369
    0
    19 December 2013 08: 44
    The news is certainly nice, if only the next blah blah blah and the fogging was not crying... And the Makeyevskoye Design Bureau will design, the Bulava collisions are well-known ... and already knocking on the window in 2014 ...
    PS Question for specialists for ICBMs weighing 100 tons. Which dvigun is preferable?
    1. +6
      19 December 2013 09: 39
      News undoubtedly +++


      Quote: Eugeniy_369
      And the Makeevskoye design bureau will also design, collisions of "Bulava" are heard.


      It was designed by MIT led by Solomon.
    2. 0
      15 December 2017 20: 25
      .... blah blah will not, all with the feeling, sense and arrangement. How the novelty will be in service ... (?) And how it will lead to the database and CI 10 years after setting ... judging by the available in the open IE stuffing ettto THING (!) And very reliable.
  2. +3
    19 December 2013 09: 41
    Makeevtsy are just docks for liquid rockets for the Strategic Missile Forces, climbing with a mace because they did not have experience in creating missiles for submarines, for liquid rockets there are definitely liquid engines, because again we always had problems with solid propellants.
    1. Onyx
      +4
      19 December 2013 11: 08
      Quote: tilovaykrisa
      Makeevtsy just docks on liquid rockets for the Strategic Missile Forces,

      Makeevtsy never made rockets for the Strategic Missile Forces, neither liquid nor solid propellant.
      Quote: tilovaykrisa
      for heavy missiles, there are definitely liquid engines, for again, we always had problems with solid propellants.

      We had normal solid fuel engines for heavy rockets. Remember at least the RT-23UTTX, which was in the mine version, and in the variant on the BZHRK
      1. +5
        19 December 2013 13: 43
        Quote: Onyx
        We had normal solid fuel engines for heavy rockets. Remember at least the RT-23UTTX, which was in the mine version, and in the variant on the BZHRK


        Americans, by the way, make all their strategic missiles according to the solid fuel scheme. Our question is posed somewhat differently than that of the adversaries. AND Are our solid rocket technology advanced enough to solve the country's political and military tasks, or is it better to turn to the old proven liquid fuel schemes, for which we have a decades-long tradition? And then the debate and tug of war between liquid-propellant and solid-fuel engines begins, and each leads arguments both positive and negative in favor of their position. Of course, the ideal option for a heavy liquid ICBM in our realities, when time is running out, would be to use the remaining capacities and equipment of Ukrainian Yuzhmash, as proposed Efremov, and not sculpt from scratch in Miass, which has never been engaged in ground-based missiles as well as MIT marine.
        That's what Efremov says about this.
        If you follow the path of creating something fundamentally new, then the "stretch" in time may be even "longer" than it happened with the Bulava. But there is another option. True, on it I still can not find allies... Its essence is to preserve the mines of the RS-20 "Satan" missiles being removed from service - there are 58 of them. From the same missiles, you need to take the first two stages. I specifically emphasize this: it is the first two. They just need to be "repeated". There is no need to deviate from what serves reliably and has shown itself well. The first two stages do not determine the combat properties of the missile. They determine only the energy during launch and affect the launch of the payload. All this can be done economically in cooperation with the Ukrainian design bureau Yuzhny Machine-Building Plant, where this rocket was produced. I am responsible for my words. I personally checked: this company has retained all the technological equipment for the production of these steps. It is enough to imagine only one structure at the plant, where the rocket is placed in a transport and launch container, - this is a hull half a kilometer in size. It contains all the stocks, all the main units for performing such work. You have to understand that in Russia we do not have technological, working documentation for such machines. Therefore, cooperation with Ukraine is necessary.
        The first stage of cooperation - and this was discussed with the heads of the Yuzhmash Design Bureau - could be the transfer of a set of technical documentation to us. So that later, in the event of a change in the political situation in Ukraine, we do not remain at a broken trough, so that we can create something new on the basis of the existing documentation. Believe me, this is backbreaking work. All this will allow in a short time, efficiently, without risk, to fulfill the task at hand: to create the first two stages with their transport and launch container, a powder accumulator that throws a 200-ton machine out of the mine by 20-30 meters, where its main engines of the first stage are launched.
        If this path is adopted, then there will be less work in Russia, and the savings will be huge. And there will be no risk. Even in terms of developing a "new" missile, which will require at least 25 test launches. As it happens now with the same Bulava, which seems to be repeating the Topol-M. The RS-20 has been tested for a long time. In this situation, we will need to work out in 10-12 launches only that new thing that will be exclusively Russian - new warhead dispensing units and a new control system. The entire top, obviously determining the combat effectiveness of the missile. Our developers and manufacturers can do this.
        1. +5
          19 December 2013 13: 44
          Once again, one has to regret the loss of the Ukrainian military-industrial complex for Russia and indeed Ukraine itself. It's obvious that cooperation with Ukraine is the last thing our authorities and the military-industrial complex will dobecause no one will abandon such a serious matter to the mercy of a volatile political course. But Putin’s recent words inspire hope in the future.
          the Russian side is ready .. to consider the possibility as our countries draw closer in the economy, the political sphere, use of defense capacities of the Ukrainian economy for the needs of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, including repair and so on ”

          But while we are driving our own way, now we are making a liquid heavy rocket in the naval design bureau from scratch, just as we did the naval Mace in MIT before that. however, from our own experience of work and service it is known that the more difficulties and problems you have to overcome, the ultimately the better the result (the idea then works both from ... and find the best technical solution,unparalleled in the world what ), and if they are not there, then you need to create them artificially.
          1. Onyx
            -4
            19 December 2013 14: 23
            You know, I wrote yesterday about all this, just copy my comment:
            It seems that we are again entering the arms race. again, we are expanding the range of weapons of strategic nuclear forces, instead of moving towards unification, placing Yars on a mobile base and in mines. Instead, we are developing a heavy missile, and even the BZHRK (although a decision on the full-scale development of the BZHRK has not yet been made while preliminary design is underway. The President has instructed to calculate the influence of the BZHRK on the organization of the Russian Railways, the state of the tracks, etc.). Moreover, the creation of a heavy mine rocket is motivated by the need for a large missile mass to overcome missile defense, although it has recently been stated that Yars is able to bypass any, including promising missile defense systems, especially with a massive launch
          2. Skiff-2
            0
            19 December 2013 21: 40
            Quote: Ascetic
            But while we are driving our own way, now we are making a liquid heavy rocket in the naval design bureau from scratch, just as we did the naval Mace in MIT before that. however, from our own experience of work and service it is known that the more difficulties and problems you have to overcome, the ultimately the better the result (the idea then works out of ... and find the best technical solution that has no analogue in the world what), and if there are none then you need to create them artificially.

            And for some reason it seems to me that "Sarmat" is molded from "Stiletto" (on the basis of its two steps), because those. the documentation has probably survived, but the tooling for production is unlikely. Makeev's design bureau survived thanks to the work on "Sineva", so it looks like they decided to combine the resource. And rightly so.
          3. +1
            28 December 2013 20: 48
            It seems to me that in matters of the military-industrial complex one should not count on cooperation with Ukraine, at least for now. Everything should be domestic - engines, control system, hoisting-and-transporting, installation, refueling and other equipment.

            In 1992 we launched a rocket made at Yuzhmash. Its malfunction was discovered during the prelaunch preparation. When the USSR was, a complaint was drawn up and their specialists (the factory brigades lived with us) eliminated everything, and then we turned. and they to us: And if you had American engines from the Shuttle, would you call them too? "
        2. bif
          0
          19 December 2013 23: 17
          Quote: Ascetic
          for this purpose it is better to turn to old proven liquid fuel schemes

          "The rocket, named according to the western classification SS-X-30, is to replace Satan. Co-developers - SRC named after Makeev (Miass) and NPO Mashinostroyenia (Reutov). The starting weight of the liquid two-stage" Sarmat "is about 100 tons, the range is on assignment 10 km, throw weight 000 kg.

          As you can see, these basic characteristics almost exactly reproduce the "middle class" - ICBM UR-100N UTTH. So the change in estimates of the required power of the "big" rocket is still evident. However, one must understand: the 10 000 km range is sufficient to “cover” all planned targets; and in 4350 kg today it can “fit” much more kilotons, anti-missile capabilities and anti-atomic stability than in the second half of the 1970-s, when the UR-100Н UTX was developed.

          It is supposed to use technologies and even ready-made units of liquid land and sea-based missiles. So, as the engine of the first stage, it is possible to use the L-R from a marine rocket (SLBM) R-29РМУ2 "Sineva", which are armed with submarine missiles of the 667BRDM project "Dolphin". And for the role of the engine for the stage of breeding warheads, we consider the corresponding unit from SLBM R-39UTTH “Bark”, which was made, and never was made to arm the latest submarines of the 955 project “Borey” (“Yuri Dolgoruky”, “Alexander Nevsky” and others with them).

          However, this information cannot be considered certain. For example, there is evidence that the 15D286 LPRE - "quarters" of the "Voevoda" engine, is being adapted for the first stage; on "Sarmat" you need to put two such "quarters". But these units, although they were developed in Khimki, at the Energomash design bureau, were mass-produced in Dnepropetrovsk, at Yuzhmash ... In such a matter - cooperation with foreign countries that are not always friendly to us? It is not clear ... "http://vz.ru/society/2013/12/17/664618.html
        3. recruit6666
          0
          20 December 2013 08: 08
          But Americans with NATO allow Ukrainians to work with us?
          1. 0
            1 June 2014 16: 53
            The rocket will be made at us. Ukraine will have no relation to this rocket
    2. AVV
      +1
      19 December 2013 12: 09
      Makeevtsy will not fail and will make a rocket on time and of high quality !!!
  3. Eugeniy_369
    0
    19 December 2013 09: 45
    Quote: Veter
    It was designed by MIT led by Solomon.

    Ugh damn fucked up, please forgive this blunder recourse . KB mixed up feel
  4. +2
    19 December 2013 09: 57
    This article in the full version has already been posted on another site. There it was described in more detail what a new missile is like, some hypothetical characteristics are given. We’ll see if they can prepare the rocket for mass production in four years. Need, of course, a replacement for the old technique. Moreover, sworn enemies also do not stand still.
  5. +1
    19 December 2013 10: 32
    Strategic Rocket Forces is a guarantee not to use foreign aggression against the Russian Federation. So we are waiting for updates.
  6. Ahmed Osmanov
    +1
    19 December 2013 10: 52
    Christmas tree needles, happy how! Here I read the news about our nuclear weapons, and it seems that we in this area are ahead of all other countries by 10-15 years, although it is. Well done!
  7. +4
    19 December 2013 11: 42
    Quote: Onyx
    Remember at least the RT-23UTTH,

    As for this product, very poor engines stood there on the first and second steps. That's why the starting mass of this product was large. Just a little over 100 tons.
    Makeevtsy made liquid rockets for boats. The diagram in the text is just typical for them: engines completely sunk in tanks. With this scheme, the rocket is extremely compact. But, actually for a land missile, where the requirements for dimensions are not so strict, such an extreme solution is an excessive complication fraught with malfunctions.
    In principle, a rocket can be made with liquid or solid fuel engines. With a liquid rocket it will be in every way easier: the energy of liquid fuels is higher. And more reliable. But the truth is, with toxic components.
    Solid fuels tend to crack during prolonged storage. And this at the start - an explosion. In general - it is possible both way and that way. If only they did it reliably. But this is the problem. Personnel - both design and production - were taken away, the technology was partially lost, the production base was partially sold out. By 2018 - it is doubtful. And in decent years, it took more time to develop a new product.
    But the initiative itself can only be supported.
    1. +3
      19 December 2013 14: 16
      Quote: AlexA
      And in decent years, it took more time to develop a new product.


      About seven to eight years, subject to multi-level cooperation, when dozens of firms were tied to the development of one project. Now it takes 10-15 years to solve such a problem, so consider it if the work on the Sarmat ROC began in 2009. Few people know that in 1991. A substitute project has already been developed to replace Voevode fifth generation heavy rocket R-36M3 "Ikar" The first two steps for the prototype were assembled at Yuzhmash, and the NGO Mash had the upper part with all the stuffing and a test launch was scheduled for the end of December 1991, but due to the collapse of the USSR it was canceled, and under the START-1 agreement further development of the rocket was stopped .
    2. 0
      28 December 2013 20: 35
      rubin6286

      Are "poor engines" weak or structurally imperfect? If the launch mass is more than 100 tons, and for separation from the launch pad it is necessary that the thrust of the engines be at least 15% higher than the launch mass of the rocket, the engines of the RT-23 are not weak at all.

      Of course, the requirements for the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy are different, but if we talk about the dimensions, they are very similar. According to the agreement, the Russian Federation cannot build new mines, expand and deepen those that exist. This means that it is necessary to "inscribe" new missiles with maximum efficiency.
      The transition from one type of fuel to another entails changes in combat control systems (ACS of all control units), and this is expensive. So, it’s more profitable to put a rocket with a rocket engine. where before they were already standing.
      At the first solid propellant rocket engines, indeed, during long-term storage, detachment of the charge from the case was observed, but if in the country since the beginning of the 80s mobile DBKs with solid-fuel rockets have been successfully operated, then this problem has been solved.

      As for the number of steps. then at the same range missiles with solid propellant rocket engines have more stages than similar rocket engines. This is due to the higher energy content of solid fuels. It burns faster and more is required.
  8. Petrhabra
    0
    19 December 2013 12: 07
    If only this did not turn out to be just a horror story for Western partners ... and the fact that in Russia it is now possible to create a magnificent rocket of this class is more than real. Only do not let the redhead with the stool
  9. Admiral 013
    +1
    19 December 2013 15: 53
    I would rather. Now everything rests on the Governor.
  10. +2
    19 December 2013 16: 06
    Quote: AlexA
    [
    Solid fuels tend to crack during prolonged storage. And this at the start - an explosion. In general - it is possible both way and that way. If only they did it reliably. But this is the problem. Personnel - both design and production - were taken away, the technology was partially lost, the production base was partially sold out. By 2018 - it is doubtful. And in decent years, it took more time to develop a new product.
    But the initiative itself can only be supported.

    Let me clarify a little, dear colleague. At the very least, they learned how to deal with cracks on solid fuel engines - but up to a certain diameter of the shell. It is impossible to pour charges of the "Voevoda" diameter. Cracks cause not so much an explosion, but an uncontrolled solid fuel combustion mode, which cannot be adjusted with some kind of throttles - like in a liquid-propellant engine. Due to uncontrolled thrust, it did not fly, for example this:

    the solid fuel charge could not withstand alternating loads when driving on rough terrain ...
    1. +1
      29 December 2013 18: 06
      This is one of our first solid fuel rockets (8K96, if my memory serves me right). Among the many reasons for not adopting it was the unsuccessful choice of chassis design, which caused the appearance of alternating loads on the charge body and its destruction during transportation.
      1. 0
        4 November 2015 13: 10
        Of course not special on the issue, but it seems to me that in the picture you are discussing - a sham for a potential enemy and not a rocket
  11. alal
    -2
    19 December 2013 16: 31
    Quote: PetrHabara
    If only this did not turn out to be just a horror story for Western partners ... and the fact that in Russia it is now possible to create a magnificent rocket of this class is more than real. Only do not let the redhead with the stool

    red and stool - Putin’s cougars
  12. -3
    19 December 2013 17: 29
    Keep it up! Build along the border, a fence of missiles!
  13. 0
    19 December 2013 20: 58
    Makeevka Design Bureau will receive funding and work is already good. The truth is irrational, they have a lot of specific equipment for testing the development of marine missiles. But it is not involved in MIT.
  14. 0
    20 December 2013 07: 26
    I like our names))) - Sarmatian, mace, breakthrough ... creative and with a touch of anger
  15. 0
    20 December 2013 16: 57
    Quote: Sergey Sitnikov
    I like our names))) - Sarmatian, mace, breakthrough ... creative and with a touch of anger


    yeah. blue, again ...
  16. 0
    April 26 2014 03: 18
    It is necessary to have a heavy rocket completely domestic production.
    There are simply no friends in this matter.
    You can talk a lot on the topic of WHAT HAPPENED (to bother about who ruined something), it is not interesting and actually has nothing to add, it pleases otherwise WE ARE READY TO CREATE YOUR OWN WEIGHT ROCKET. I hope the missing technology will be recreated in the process.
    1. 0
      15 December 2017 20: 19
      And what will be new in service ......?

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"