Military Review

The construction of the prototype of the Sarmat rocket has been completed

46
New details of one of the promising projects being developed in the interests of the strategic missile forces have become known. It is reported about the completion of the assembly of a prototype of one of the new missiles, which in the future should take over on duty and replace the existing weapons of its class. In addition, published some information about the approximate timing of the subsequent phases of the project.


On November 17, the TASS news agency, citing an unnamed source in the defense industry, provided some details of the work on the PC-28 Sarmat project. The source said that employees of the Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant completed the construction of the first prototype of a promising ICBM. Already manufactured 100% of the necessary structural elements. Some components and assemblies are tested in the factory. Thus, a prototype of the Sarmat rocket can be transferred for testing in the very near future, but the timing of their start depends on the performance of other works.

According to the source, tests of the new missile system will be conducted at the Plesetsk test site. Especially for tests of the PC-28 rocket, one of the silo launchers must undergo refurbishment and receive a set of new equipment that will enable it to launch new ICBMs. Re-equipment of the launcher will continue for several months. The installation will be ready for testing only in March next year.


An early PC-28 layout. Figure Wikimedia Commons


In the early spring of 2016, it is planned to complete the conversion of the silo launcher, which will allow for the first tests. The first launch of the prototype rocket "Sarmat" can occur in March. The source claims that it may be the only throwing tests. In case of successful execution of the first such launch, the subsequent ones will not be needed, which will allow to proceed to other tests.

A source from the TASS agency notes that when working on similar projects between throwing and flight design tests, it takes about three to four months. Thus, the first full-fledged launch of a new type of ICBM could take place in July or August of the following year. In the future, there will be several other launches that will allow you to check and modify the missile system before being put into service.

It is reported that plans for the timing of the tests of the new rocket have been adjusted. They were shifted to the right due to changes in the site on which test launches should take place. Initially, the Baikonur cosmodrome, which had the necessary equipment, was considered as a testing ground. Later it was decided to transfer the tests to the Plesetsk test site, which required some additional work. A TASS source said that the Sarmat’s tests will use a fairly old silo launcher, which was previously used to test the Voyevoda P-36М2 missiles.

The source said that not only the dates for the start of the tests have changed. For certain reasons, the manufacture of the first prototype of the rocket was also delayed. The assembly of this product was completed several months later than the date provided for by the original work schedule. However, it is argued that this fact will not affect the overall timing of the project. The new intercontinental ballistic missile, as planned earlier, will be adopted by the Strategic Missile Forces in the last months of 2018.

It should be noted that the postponement of the completion of the assembly of the first prototype of the PC-28 rocket is not news. So, at the end of February of this year, TASS reported that about 30% of the rocket design elements were manufactured. The unnamed source in the defense industry then claimed that it would take no more than two or three months to complete the assembly of the new product, so that in May or June the rocket would be handed over for tests, which were then stated to be held at the Baikonur cosmodrome.

In February, some details of the project were also clarified. In particular, it was argued that the first prototype would be a layout with a set of systems having the same dimensions and weight as a full-fledged rocket. The task of this prototype will be to exit the launcher using a powder pressure accumulator. The launch of the prototype engine is not planned. Instead, the warhead was supposed to install the corresponding cargo.

At the end of June, TASS again reported on the progress of work on assembling the first Sarmat. According to updated data, the construction of the prototype was delayed, because of which the work schedule was changed. By this time, 60% structural elements were manufactured, but further work required additional time. It was alleged that the rocket assembly will be completed in September or October. Deadline unnamed source marked the end of October. In June, it was again claimed that the throwing tests would be held at Baikonur.

After more than two weeks after the “red line” indicated at the end of June, new progress reports have appeared. As of mid-November, the prototype PC-28 rocket is allegedly ready for tests, which will be held only in the spring of next year. In addition, it has now become aware of the transfer of tests to another site. For unnamed reasons, the promising missile will be tested at the Plesetsk test site.

It is noteworthy that the change of the landfill also affected the timing of the start of the test. So, in February, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said that the Sarmat missile tests will start before the end of this year. Now, their start dates have shifted by at least three months - until the spring of 2016. Thus, the military department and various organizations of the defense industry seemed to have to change the schedule twice in accordance with the current state of affairs and production problems.

It should be noted that shifts in the timing of the implementation of certain stages of the project are not something special or unexpected. The development of any new project is associated with serious difficulties, some of which are quite capable of delaying various works. Available data on the Sarmat project suggest that the developers and builders of the new rocket faced relatively minor problems, which affected the timing of the prototype assembly and the start date of the tests, but have not yet changed the plans for adopting the rocket. As before, it is planned that the corresponding document will appear at the end of 2018 of the year. By this time, should be completed all major work.

According to reports, the development of the project RS-28 "Sarmat" is engaged in the State Rocket Center. Makeeva (Miass) with the participation of some related organizations. The aim of the project is to create a new heavy-duty intercontinental ballistic missile, which will replace the obsolete UR-100N UTTH and P-36М in the army. Currently, strategic rocket forces have several dozen old types of ICBMs that can be operated no more than until the second half of the next decade.

With the creation and mass production of the new Sarmat missile, it is intended to provide the Strategic Missile Forces with the necessary number of new heavy-duty ICBMs, which will preserve or even increase the strike potential of the troops. According to the previously announced data, deliveries of serial "Sarmatians" will begin in 2018-20, which will allow the timely replacement of old missiles to begin.

The technical details of the Sarmat project are still a mystery. It was previously mentioned that the PC-28 product will have a starting weight of the order of 100 t and will receive liquid rocket engines. The drop weight, according to various data, will be at the level of 4,5-5 t, however, some estimates suggest twice the value of this parameter. The combat load will consist of several maneuvering warheads of individual guidance. The types and power of warheads were not specified. Flight range is estimated at 10-11 thousand. Km.

Through the efforts of specialists from several organizations, the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile project RS-28 reached the stage of assembling a prototype and preparing for the first tests. The first launch launch is scheduled for next spring. Flight design tests can start in the summer of the 2016. Thus, plans for launching a rocket into service until the end of 2018 look quite real. By the beginning of the next decade, the Strategic Missile Forces will definitely receive new missiles with enhanced characteristics.


On the materials of the sites:
http://tass.ru/
http://ria.ru/
http://interfax.ru/
http://rg.ru/
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-435.html
Author:
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NEXUS
    NEXUS 19 November 2015 06: 07
    +6
    Well, bon voyage soldier Rather, it would be for testing and on duty to replace the "old" Voevoda, who served faithfully. drinksAnd then let the Americans scratch the pumpkins, thinking that this can be opposed.
    1. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 19 November 2015 07: 56
      +5
      Quote: NEXUS
      Rather, it would be for testing and on duty to replace the "old" Voevoda, who served faithfully.

      And a purely Russian product will also enter, without any import impregnations, YuZHMASH and others!
  2. andrei.yandex
    andrei.yandex 19 November 2015 06: 49
    +2
    ICBMs Topol, Topol-M, Yars are not bad, but the West and ours always knew that the main danger is apparently still UR-100N UTTH "Stilet" ss-19 (MIRV IN 6x750 kt, throw weight 4350 kg) and R-36M2 "Voivoda" ss-18 (MIRV IN 10x750 kt, throw weight 8730 kg). So that's why ours are replacing the UR-100N UTTH "Stilett" ss-19, I don't know exactly about the number of false targets they have. The R-36M2 Voevoda ss-18 has up to 40 false targets, according to the press, but Yuzhmash made missiles of this heavy class.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 19 November 2015 07: 05
      +3
      Quote: andrei.yandex
      The R-36M2 Voevoda ss-18 has up to 40 false targets, according to the press, but Yuzhmash made missiles of this heavy class.

      Sarmat will be twice as lighter as the Voivode and most likely (according to discussions about project 4202) it will be hypersonic. For false goals, I think there will be less of them, precisely due to high-speed characteristics (stupidly not catching up and not intercepting) and the masses.
      1. GRAY
        GRAY 19 November 2015 08: 01
        +5
        Quote: NEXUS
        .As for false goals, I think there will be fewer of them, precisely as a result of speed characteristics (stupidly not to catch up and not to intercept) and the masses.

        All ICBMs, in fact, are hypersonic.
        American missile defense missiles, in the final part of the trajectory, use infrared guidance.
        I hope that this fact was taken into account in the design of false targets because here not only reflectors are needed, but also thermal traps.
        1. DenZ
          DenZ 19 November 2015 12: 00
          +1
          All ICBMs, in fact, are hypersonic.

          Not ICBMs are hypersonic but warheads are hypersonic. And that kind of as soon as in the final section of the trajectory (closer to the point of impact on the ground)
          1. GRAY
            GRAY 19 November 2015 14: 24
            0
            Quote: DenZ
            And that kind of as soon as in the final section of the trajectory (closer to the point of impact on the ground)

            I read something about "Minuteman":
            All rocket fuel is produced by boosters in 3-5 minutes, and it flies 20-25 minutes. During this time, called the active section, the head of the rocket reported flight speed of 6,0 - 7, 9 km / s.
            The first artificial satellite at a speed of 8 km / s was launched into orbit smile
            1. DenZ
              DenZ 19 November 2015 14: 47
              0
              Quote: GRAY
              All rocket fuel is produced by boosters in 3-5 minutes, and it flies 20-25 minutes. During this time, called the active section, the head of the rocket reported flight speed of 6,0 - 7, 9 km / s. The first artificial satellite at a speed of 8 km / s was launched into orbit

              This nonsense is surrendered to me. Solid rockets at speeds like you write don't fly- 3-4 km-s maximum that I can believe.
              1. alex86
                alex86 20 November 2015 22: 18
                +1
                Since ICBMs with any type of engine fly to a range of about 10 thousand km, then its speed should be close to the 1st space one, i.e. in the region of 7 km / s. The height of the trajectory with a traditional trajectory (not flat) is up to a thousand km. At 3-4 km / s the intercontinental range cannot be reached (for ICBMs), or the active section will be unjustifiably increased.
          2. Kathernik
            Kathernik 20 November 2015 16: 57
            +1
            - And this seems to be not quite so, because closer to the surface of the BB slow down significantly ....
            1. alex86
              alex86 21 November 2015 19: 00
              0
              As you understand, only due to air resistance, and forced braking is used only by the Chinese in anti-ship ballistic missiles - and these are only declarations so far, there is no confirmation (however, the Pershing, as I understand it, had the same technology - braking for the possibility accurate guidance)
          3. alex86
            alex86 20 November 2015 22: 35
            0
            Since hypersonic speed today is considered to be more than 5M (roughly, more than 1600 m / s), then all ICBMs and their blocks can be considered hypersonic. The phrase of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief about that. that "they work on hypersound" must be attributed to technical and terminological ignorance.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. ivanovbg
          ivanovbg 19 November 2015 15: 03
          +1
          Quote: GRAY
          here not only reflectors are needed, but also thermal traps.


          The idea is not bad, but at the end of the trajectory, the warhead will enter the dense layers of the atmosphere at a speed of 7,5 km / s and decelerate to 3 km / s. In this case, the surface of the "blank" heats up to 6000 ° C. It's hard for me to imagine the trap that this temperature constantly gives. Perhaps the mass-dimensional equivalent, but this will drastically reduce the payload of the rocket.
          1. mahor
            mahor 22 January 2016 23: 09
            0
            Quote: ivanovbg
            Quote: GRAY
            here not only reflectors are needed, but also thermal traps.


            The idea is not bad, but at the end of the trajectory, the warhead will enter the dense layers of the atmosphere at a speed of 7,5 km / s and decelerate to 3 km / s. In this case, the surface of the "blank" heats up to 6000 ° C. It's hard for me to imagine the trap that this temperature constantly gives. Perhaps the mass-dimensional equivalent, but this will drastically reduce the payload of the rocket.


            There along with warheads fly blanks of the same weight and dimensions, plus dipoles, reflectors, mylar balls, whistles and rattles ... bully
        4. The comment was deleted.
      2. mahor
        mahor 22 January 2016 23: 06
        0
        Quote: NEXUS
        Quote: andrei.yandex
        The R-36M2 Voevoda ss-18 has up to 40 false targets, according to the press, but Yuzhmash made missiles of this heavy class.

        Sarmat will be twice as lighter as the Voivode and most likely (according to discussions about project 4202) it will be hypersonic. For false goals, I think there will be less of them, precisely due to high-speed characteristics (stupidly not catching up and not intercepting) and the masses.


        A typical mistake. Even Dannom wrote that the weight will be more than 100 tons. Heavy class rocket ..
    2. kuz363
      kuz363 19 November 2015 08: 12
      -1
      Yes, the Americans lit up on Poplar when they threw in that they would shoot down anti-ballistic missiles on the initial launch trajectory. And they say it is necessary to put solid-fuel rockets with greater speed. Especially with fewer heads. So Poplar got out with one head, poor security, and it’s clearly visible from the satellite.
      1. Nik_One
        Nik_One 19 November 2015 13: 35
        +3
        In these cases, America has nothing to do with it. Mobile and heavy missiles complement each other, not compete. As for satellite visibility, the coordinates of the silos are generally known with maximum accuracy.
        R-36 is a heavy missile for global thermonuclear war; it was not for nothing that its enemies called it the name of the horseman of the apocalypse.
  3. qwert
    qwert 19 November 2015 06: 57
    +4
    andrei.yandex, got ahead. I also wanted to say that Sarmat, this is not the Governor and not the RT-23 UTX "Well done", but still better than Topol and Yars. It is unlikely that in Russia in the near future they will be able to create an analogue to Voivode and Molodets. But, the news is still positive
    1. inkass_98
      inkass_98 19 November 2015 07: 21
      +4
      "Molodets" is a railway complex, work on its replacement is already underway.
    2. Nik_One
      Nik_One 19 November 2015 13: 24
      +3
      Just the same, Russia has more chances to create a heavy liquid-propellant missile "Sarmat" than it did with the solid-fuel "Bulava". at the SRC them. Makeeva has vast experience in creating ICBMs for submarines. One "Blue" with its characteristics is worth something. And it's easier to adapt a naval missile to a silo version than to do the opposite. The story with "Bulava" in this case is indicative. Therefore, the chances of a successful completion of the process are very high.
    3. ver_
      ver_ 19 November 2015 16: 53
      0
      ... Sarmat will pull the elusive blocks 100% ..
  4. Belousov
    Belousov 19 November 2015 08: 03
    +2
    The news is positive. Still, they would be pleased with something about the new railway complexes.
    1. Nik_One
      Nik_One 19 November 2015 13: 25
      0
      I hope that this will soon be pleased. Moreover, work in this direction seems to be going on.)
  5. Kalmar
    Kalmar 19 November 2015 08: 45
    +1
    Explain, what is the fundamental advantage of "Sarmat" over the same "Yars"? A large throw weight is undoubtedly good, but even if a missile is destroyed, a large number of warheads are lost at once.

    The Americans (according to them) have improved the accuracy of their Tridents very well, so it may make sense to focus on lighter missiles scattered over a large number of silos: this will increase the consumption of potential enemy missiles in an attempt to destroy our strategic nuclear forces.
    1. avt
      avt 19 November 2015 08: 58
      +5
      Quote: Kalmar
      ? A large abandoned weight is undoubtedly good, but even in the event of the destruction of a rocket, a large number of warheads are lost at once.

      First, try to catch .Not in greenhouse conditions, when there is a beacon on the target, but let it go from somewhere Kvajalein.
      Quote: Kalmar
      , it makes sense to focus on lighter missiles scattered over a large number of silos: this will increase the consumption of probable enemy missiles in an attempt to destroy our strategic nuclear forces.

      laughing Generally aware that this is a silos ??? Like how to sow grain? Or holes like artesian wells to drill and concrete? I’m not talking about the number of prepared calculations, the security there is different, the personnel for routine maintenance, etc.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 19 November 2015 13: 32
        0
        Quote: avt
        Try to catch first

        Why catch it? I'm talking about the destruction of missiles prior to launch by a disarming strike. Interception after launch is a completely different story.

        Generally aware that this is a silos ??? Like how to sow grain? Or holes like artesian wells to drill and concrete?

        And like to develop a new rocket, to establish its mass production, to train specialists for subsequent use and maintenance - it's free, right?
        1. Tambov Wolf
          Tambov Wolf 19 November 2015 16: 00
          0
          What kind of "disarming" blow is this? Any missile launches, even ballistic missiles from a foreign territory, are detected by satellite groups, air defense systems and other methods of reconnaissance. Suppose silos are located in Siberia. instantly, the Strategic Missile Forces begins to launch missiles within a few minutes. While the missiles of a "disarming" strike will arrive, all the missiles will already be in flight and who will you disarm, empty silos?
    2. albanian
      albanian 19 November 2015 11: 15
      +3
      The greater the combat load, the more you can take with you the means to overcome pro.
      And the range margin will allow for much more possible directions.
      As for the possibility of interception in the initial stages, good technical equipment is required here.
      The overall efficiency is achieved with a good study of all stages of combat use - we can launch missiles quickly and along trajectories "not pleasant" for interception with a large number of means of overcoming pro. On the example of cm3, this means that in order to defeat our MBR, the time for collecting data (fixing the launch, detecting a missile, calculating the trajectory) should be reduced, the interval, if possible, of interception should also decrease - there are high requirements for ensuring the quality the requirements of the complex will be met.

      As for the destruction of shpu, then there is still the question of what the first salvo of the deployed launch vehicles will be spent on, since there are few warheads, and there are many "tasty" targets. But the target is not easy for her, one warhead may not be enough.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 19 November 2015 13: 36
        0
        As for the destruction of shpu, then there is still the question of what the first salvo of the deployed launch vehicles will be spent on, since there are few warheads, and there are many "tasty" targets. But the target is not easy for her, one warhead may not be enough.

        There are not so many really tasty goals: large ports and large industrial facilities, oil / gas pipelines and all that.
        As for the silos, then yes, it seems like two warheads rely on one mine. Moreover, the estimated probability of destruction exceeds 90%. It is clear that in practice this has not been verified by anyone, but still.
        1. albanian
          albanian 19 November 2015 18: 28
          0
          Quote: Kalmar

          There are not so many really tasty goals: large ports and large industrial facilities, oil / gas pipelines and all that.
          As for the silos, then yes, it seems like two warheads rely on one mine. Moreover, the estimated probability of destruction exceeds 90%. It is clear that in practice this has not been verified by anyone, but still.


          This is where the question arises on what plans and from what considerations the "flight map" will be formed.
          Indeed, in our country and in the states, the number of silos goes to hundreds, dozens of large military facilities, and important industrial centers, if not hundreds, are close to this.
          You have to choose where to direct the first volley. Or we crush military facilities, preventing the loss of our armed forces and gaining an advantage at the initial stage. Or we press the industrial base making it difficult to replenish resources. You can combine it. But it will not be possible to hit all the objects at once, and the same silos can be reused. If you do not destroy the main airfields, then wait for greetings from strategic carriers from them, and this is not a small part of one and a half thousand warheads.
          On the other hand, if you do not touch production, power plants, hydroelectric power stations, etc. things, then the rate of replenishment of the same nuclear arsenal and conventional weapons will increase.
          Plus, you need to calculate for what goals they will hit you, at least in theory, as well as to correlate these plans with the capabilities of conventional means of armies, allies, etc.
          After all, what you plan to capture in the near future does not need to be destroyed.
          You also need not to forget the flight time and the physical capabilities per se reach the targets, the area of ​​countries is large, not from all points you can hit any target on a neighboring continent. And the submarine fleet needs to be somehow calculated, but their flight time is minimal.
          This I briefly described some problems with the choice of goals, in fact there are many more of them and more than a dozen analysts are engaged in their development, a lot of plans are being made for both attacking (preventive) and retaliatory actions, the most relevant of which, apparently, should be available for implementation as soon as possible. Perhaps the very uncles with thick briefcases (which we sometimes notice in photos and videos) carry these plans, but this, as they say, is already from the realm of fantasy)
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. DenZ
      DenZ 19 November 2015 12: 30
      +1
      but even in the event of the destruction of a rocket, a large number of warheads are lost at once
      If such moments are allowed, then armament may not be developed and produced at all. What for? All the same, everything is gouging.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 19 November 2015 13: 38
        -1
        Quote: DenZ
        If such moments are allowed, then armament may not be developed and produced at all.

        Like, do you need to build your military doctrine solely on the basis of zero losses? If we considered any Zulus as an adversary, then okay, but this is not our case. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that some part of the strategic nuclear forces can be destroyed before it can be used. Accordingly, it would be nice to make sure that the remaining part does not seem to the enemy.
        1. DenZ
          DenZ 19 November 2015 14: 33
          0
          Accordingly, it would be nice to make sure that the remaining part does not seem to the enemy.

          This is of course true, but under the START Treaty, we cannot bet on our strategists. missiles as many warheads as we want and the power of these warheads is also limited by the scope of the treaty. Therefore, the only means of superiority remains - the high probability of delivering the warhead to the target. Of course, zero losses may not work. But who knows which missile will be destroyed in a mine with one 50-megaton warhead or from 4 to 10 megatons (according to the contract, it seems that it is impossible to put more than 4, although 10 can be stuck on another product). This is a matter of chance, and how in this case it is taken care that "the remaining part of the enemy does not seem a little" I do not rationally understand, since the potentials of Russia and the United States are equal. But the desire is correct, good, and you need to strive for this, but through reducing losses at the start and during the flight of the missile and warhead. Something like this.
          1. Nik_One
            Nik_One 19 November 2015 14: 42
            0
            There is nothing like that in the contract! The power of warheads is not regulated. Only the maximum weight of the missiles is limited, not more than that of the R-36.
          2. Kalmar
            Kalmar 19 November 2015 16: 25
            0
            Quote: DenZ
            Therefore, the only means of superiority remains the greater probability of delivering the warhead to the target.

            Exactly. But in a rocket that was attacked before launch (in launcher), the probability of warhead delivery to targets rises to zero. And the more warheads she has, the more they are eliminated from the game in the event of a PU defeat.
          3. Kalmar
            Kalmar 19 November 2015 16: 25
            0
            Quote: DenZ
            Therefore, the only means of superiority remains the greater probability of delivering the warhead to the target.

            Exactly. But in a rocket that was attacked before launch (in launcher), the probability of warhead delivery to targets rises to zero. And the more warheads she has, the more they are eliminated from the game in the event of a PU defeat.
            1. albanian
              albanian 19 November 2015 18: 40
              0
              Quote: Kalmar
              Quote: DenZ
              Therefore, the only means of superiority remains the greater probability of delivering the warhead to the target.

              Exactly. But in a rocket that was attacked before launch (in launcher), the probability of warhead delivery to targets rises to zero. And the more warheads she has, the more they are eliminated from the game in the event of a PU defeat.


              It is believed that most of the missiles from pu will already go to a retaliatory strike, and losing a shpu without a missile is not so scary, and it is much easier to restore it for reuse (unless of course there is a direct hit after which little is left of pu), the benefit of a 100-200 meter miss, theoretically, can be experienced without damage.
              1. Kalmar
                Kalmar 19 November 2015 22: 16
                +1
                It is believed that most of the missiles from pu will already go on a retaliatory strike, and losing a silo without a missile is not so scary

                An empty silo is a thing, of course, useless: after a large-scale exchange of ICBMs, it will no longer be useful to anyone :)

                As for the retaliatory strike: that's the whole point. The flight time of the Tridents will be 10-15 minutes. Of these, four minutes will be required for the early warning system to detect and classify the missile launches as a real attack. In the remaining few minutes, the leadership must make a decision about the beginning of the end of the world, give the appropriate orders, the missiles must be prepared for launch (about a minute, it seems) and so on. In short, there is a significant risk that a significant number of launchers will come under fire before the missiles leave. Something like this.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. ver_
      ver_ 19 November 2015 17: 28
      0
      ... the U-71 glider "drags" blocks at a speed of 11 km. in a second along an unpredictable trajectory ... - interception is impossible ..
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 19 November 2015 17: 34
        +1
        Quote: ver_
        ... the U-71 glider "drags" blocks at a speed of 11 km. in a second along an unpredictable trajectory ... - interception is impossible ..

        Not really ...11000 km / h hi
      2. opus
        opus 19 November 2015 21: 06
        0
        Quote: ver_
        .Glider U-71 "drags" blocks at a speed of 11 km. in a second

        then he will easily reach the moon
        / do not even need to develop the second space = 2 km / s

        the lowest speed of departure from the Earth, which in principle provides the possibility of reaching the Moon, when starting from the orbit of an Earth satellite with a height of 200 km, the plane of which coincides with the plane of the orbit of the moon, is 10,84890 km / s.


        Here "glider" will not be able to leave the vicinity of the Earth and become a satellite of the Sun
    7. mahor
      mahor 22 January 2016 23: 12
      0
      Quote: Kalmar
      Explain, what is the fundamental advantage of "Sarmat" over the same "Yars"? A large throw weight is undoubtedly good, but even if a missile is destroyed, a large number of warheads are lost at once.

      The Americans (according to them) have improved the accuracy of their Tridents very well, so it may make sense to focus on lighter missiles scattered over a large number of silos: this will increase the consumption of potential enemy missiles in an attempt to destroy our strategic nuclear forces.



      Sarmat can fly on any trajectory, including through the South Pole, unlike Yars-Topol ... bully
    8. mahor
      mahor 29 January 2016 17: 55
      0
      Explain, what is the fundamental advantage of "Sarmat" over the same "Yars"? A large throw weight is undoubtedly good, but even if a missile is destroyed, a large number of warheads are lost at once.


      Flying along any trajectory, Sarmat is a platform for various warheads, including non-nuclear ones ...
  6. Captain45
    Captain45 19 November 2015 09: 58
    10
    More missiles, good and different! I’m glad that not everyone managed to ruin the Yeltsin-Peltsin am , there is still gunpowder in the powder flasks and berries in the buttocks good
    From the Internet:
    "I'm on the bus. Nearby is dad in military uniform with his son, about 5 years old. The son asks a bunch of questions, dad is" boiling. " And Sashka said that he and his mother flew for 10 hours! "" I tell you, twenty minutes, maybe twenty-one ... Don't argue, I know exactly how long to fly to America! "I look at my father's overcoat with the" Rocket Forces "patch strategic purpose "... And dad is right, about 20 minutes ...." laughing
    1. GRAY
      GRAY 19 November 2015 12: 10
      +4
      Quote: Captain45
      From the Internet:

      :-)
  7. Monax
    Monax 19 November 2015 10: 46
    0
    Apparently, the "figure" depicts a rocket, which can be used not only to throw the "combat" load where necessary. Or is it just a background? And silos are mine launchers.
  8. marinier
    marinier 19 November 2015 10: 50
    +1
    Good time of the day.
    Your V.P.K. pleases. Pozdrulyaiu, 4to no den that is good news.
    higher performance rockets.
    Dare., Uda4i
  9. litus
    litus 19 November 2015 11: 05
    +2
    yes, my comrades have already outstripped me - I also believe that Sarmat is by no means a Voivode by throwing weight. It is hoped that according to its filling and other characteristics, on the contrary, the Voivode will not be Sarmat ;-)
    1. Nik_One
      Nik_One 19 November 2015 13: 29
      +2
      It should be less in cast weight, but keep in mind that in those days when the R-36 was created and the requirements for weight were greater. Progress goes forward, accuracy increases, weight characteristics of electronics decrease. So it’s not a single weight, as they say ...)
  10. for_White_Only
    for_White_Only 19 November 2015 16: 26
    0
    And then, why? Are they not the same type, mine?
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 19 November 2015 17: 18
      +1
      Quote: for_White_Only
      And then, why? Are they not the same type, mine?

      The range is different and the class in weight, too.
  11. for_White_Only
    for_White_Only 19 November 2015 20: 01
    0
    Quote: NEXUS
    Quote: for_White_Only
    And then, why? Are they not the same type, mine?

    The range is different and the class in weight, too.

    Ok, thank you.
  12. Old26
    Old26 19 November 2015 22: 45
    0
    Quote: andrei.yandex
    ICBMs Topol, Topol-M, Yars are not bad, but the West and ours always knew that the main danger is apparently still UR-100N UTTH "Stilet" ss-19 (MIRV IN 6x750 kt, throw weight 4350 kg) and R-36M2 "Voivoda" ss-18 (MIRV IN 10x750 kt, throw weight 8730 kg). So that's why ours are replacing the UR-100N UTTH "Stilett" ss-19, I don't know exactly about the number of false targets they have. The R-36M2 Voevoda ss-18 has up to 40 false targets, according to the press, but Yuzhmash made missiles of this heavy class.

    It all depends on the type of false targets. There can be 100 pieces of inflatable mail balls, and maybe 200. There are 36 times less heavy atmospheric false targets that repeat the characteristics of the BB on the same R-2M10 than the announced figure of 40 pieces

    Quote: NEXUS
    Sarmat will be twice as lighter as the Voivode and most likely (according to conversations about project 4202) it will be hypersonic.

    Nobody knows how much it will weigh. It is only known that this is a 100-ton class heavy missile. So, the starting weight can be in the range from 106 to 199 tons. I think, while maintaining the same approximate parameters (specific payload), the weight will be about 120-140 tons
    And "Sarmat", in principle, is not intended for products created according to project 4202. These are products of the second generation, and on the "Sarmat" there will most likely be products of the third generation, which are not yet available

    Quote: DenZ
    Quote: GRAY
    All rocket fuel is produced by boosters in 3-5 minutes, and it flies 20-25 minutes. During this time, called the active section, the head of the rocket reported flight speed of 6,0 - 7, 9 km / s. The first artificial satellite at a speed of 8 km / s was launched into orbit

    This nonsense is surrendered to me. Solid rockets at speeds like you write don't fly- 3-4 km-s maximum that I can believe.

    Keep on believing. Even go to church to strengthen your faith. But on the VO resource, in principle, one should not operate with the concepts of "believe" or "do not believe". Better to use the terms "know". But you have, alas, tension with this. And what would seem easier. Open any technical resource, but what's a technical one, the same Wikipedia (I'm not talking about calculating by the Tsiolkovsky formula myself) and you can simply read that:

    • "Trident-2" maximum speed 8,006 km / s
    • "Minuteman-3" maximum speed 7 km / s
    • "Poplar" maximum speed 7 km / s
    • "Topol-M" maximum speed 7,32 km / s
    • "Yarsa" maximum speed 6,806 km / s

    So believe further that solid-propellant rockets have a speed of 3-4 km / s
    This is the way the speed of medium-range missiles
  13. Old26
    Old26 19 November 2015 22: 48
    +1
    Quote: kuz363
    Yes, the Americans lit up on Poplar when they threw in that they would shoot down anti-ballistic missiles on the initial launch trajectory. And they say it is necessary to put solid-fuel rockets with greater speed. Especially with fewer heads. So Poplar got out with one head, poor security, and it’s clearly visible from the satellite.

    No need to repeat nonsense, someone and once written. When the "Topol" was created, the Americans still did not have such funds in the project ...

    Quote: Nik_One
    Just the same, Russia has more chances to create a heavy liquid-propellant missile "Sarmat" than it did with the solid-fuel "Bulava". at the SRC them. Makeeva has vast experience in creating ICBMs for submarines. One "Blue" with its characteristics is worth something. And it's easier to adapt a naval missile to a silo version than to do the opposite. The story with "Bulava" in this case is indicative. Therefore, the chances of a successful completion of the process are very high.

    GREC Makeev has experience in creating light rockets. The maximum that they had was a 90-ton R-39. so experience creating heavy they don’t have rockets

    Quote: Albanian
    This is where the question arises on what plans and from what considerations the "flight map" will be formed. After all, in our country and in the states, the number of shpu goes to hundreds, there are dozens of large military facilities, important industrial centers, if not hundreds, then close to this. direct the first salvo.

    Well, there will be no point in firing at the mines, they will already be empty. And this means - the infrastructure of the state ... Its main and most "painful points"

    Quote: Albanian
    Perhaps the very uncles with thick briefcases (which we sometimes notice in photos and videos) carry these plans, but this, as they say, is already from the realm of fantasy)

    Those uncles with thick briefcases accompanying the president wear "Cheget" in these briefcases

    Quote: ver_
    ... the U-71 glider "drags" blocks at a speed of 11 km. in a second along an unpredictable trajectory ... - interception is impossible ..

    Yeah ... I don't even know what to say. Now there are several things about which they talk avidly, the old one to attach their mentions where necessary and where not. These are "Caliber", Ships "Buyan-M", "Iskander" and finally the Kh-101. Oh yes, I forgot the "glider"
    But the one who writes about it would not hurt to at least look at the translation of the word glider. Maybe then there was no such nonsense that was written: "glider" drags blocks ...
    Respected. The word glider is translated as PLANER. Under this concept is sometimes understood winged warhead. But it turns out that the winged block drags the blocks. In addition, the index U71 (by the way, it is not complete) does not belong to the "glider". By letter Ю in the GRAU indexing system, EMNIP products with special-purpose combat units (non-nuclear) are designated. So far I have only met 2 such products - these are 71 products and 75 you mentioned above. Moreover, sometimes they are mentioned with the previous indices

    Quote: for_White_Only
    And then, why? Are they not the same type, mine?

    "Frontier" was never planned by the mine
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. Old26
    Old26 20 November 2015 08: 20
    +1
    Quote: DenZ
    But who knows what missile will be destroyed in a mine with one warhead of 50 megatons or from 4 to 10 megatons (according to the agreement it’s possible to put more than 4 even though 10 can be stuck on another product).

    Let me read the texts of these agreements. It’s very interesting where did you see it there
    Human comrade Nik_One. There is nothing like that in the contract! The power of warheads is not regulated. By the way, your example is 1 warhead of 50 mt or 4 of 10 mt in general from the realm of fiction. The maximum that was on our missiles is 20-25 mt. And already 4 x 10 mt was not even in the projects. And if there were a restriction, then how correctly wrote the comrade Nik_One only by starting weight. There was still a limit on the number of warheads on land ICBMs - not more than 10
  16. Gippo
    Gippo 21 November 2015 02: 51
    0
    "Frontier" was never planned by the mine

    Poplar was also created primarily as a mobile soil complex. However, a mine option is available.
    Given the high degree of unification of these missiles, why not?
  17. Old26
    Old26 21 November 2015 08: 39
    0
    Quote: Gippo
    Poplar was also created primarily as a mobile soil complex. However, there is a mine option. Given the high degree of unification of these missiles, why not?

    "Poplar" has never been a mine. Only mobile, like its predecessor. Only Topol-M was mine. It was announced about the "Frontier" (at the level of the Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Missile Forces and the Ministry of Defense) that it would only be mobile. From a purely technical point of view, there are no problems to locate in the mine. But this is more expensive than mobile hosting
    1. mahor
      mahor 22 January 2016 23: 19
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Quote: Gippo
      Poplar was also created primarily as a mobile soil complex. However, there is a mine option. Given the high degree of unification of these missiles, why not?

      "Poplar" has never been a mine. Only mobile, like its predecessor. Only Topol-M was mine. It was announced about the "Frontier" (at the level of the Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Missile Forces and the Ministry of Defense) that it would only be mobile. From a purely technical point of view, there are no problems to locate in the mine. But this is more expensive than mobile hosting


      And not only costly. Americans are forced to fill the mine with concrete so that it is not possible to place another type of missile there ...
  18. mahor
    mahor 24 January 2016 09: 02
    0
    The USP data will be part of reconnaissance-strike complexes with precision intellectualized control systems of a new generation, which will ensure the defeat of highly protected stationary, and in the future, mobile targets under the influence of anti-aircraft defense systems, radio and optical and electronic countermeasures of the enemy.
    The use of VTRSO with new ones, including penetrating USP, implies their use in single and group launches, and therefore saturation of the missile defense system with false targets cannot be the only means of overcoming the territorial or object missile defense system. It is important to reduce the visibility of combat equipment in the ranges of operation of the means of detecting and targeting missile defense and air defense systems, as well as the possibility of circumventing the affected areas or reducing the time spent in these areas.
    This problem can be successfully solved with the help of USP on the basis of a modular hypersonic winged vehicle (MGUKA), tests of one of the versions of which are currently underway and of a detachable homing element (SPE).
    Along with the capabilities of MGUKA and SPE, bypassing the zones affected by the missile defense system, the necessary conditions are provided for the operation of satellite and special navigation systems and an integrated multi-band optical-electronic correction and homing system in the final part of the trajectory. The proposed construction of MGUKA provides delivery of EIT in a given area with the required parameters of its movement and their separation at high speed pressures. At the site of the marching flight of the maneuvering MGUKA, its trajectory is corrected using navigation systems and a radio altimeter.
    After separation, the POC performs an autonomous controlled flight to the target area, where conditions for the functioning of finishing guidance systems in the final part of the trajectory are provided.
    For a "heavy" ICBM, an original design of MGUKA and SPE is proposed, with charges of increased and large power classes, ensuring the destruction of especially significant highly protected objects.
    According to preliminary estimates, nuclear and conventional equipment options due to the high accuracy of delivery, the special design of the combat compartment and the EIT penetrator ensure the destruction of strategic targets embedded in the ground to a depth of 30 ... 100m, the destruction of internal premises of the "reinforced concrete bunker" type with a total thickness of reinforced concrete shelters to 5 ... 12m.
    The analysis showed that the proposed heat-shielding design of MGUKA, the trajectory features of the flight of MGUKA and SPE, and the active and passive PCB components that make up the combat completeness make it possible to effectively overcome a promising air defense system even with single missile launches.
    Currently, taking into account the special significance of these works, their integration is carried out at 4 Central Research Institute under the special theme "Shlyambur", which combines the groundwork for many R & D projects - Nonius, Zigzag, Oval, Capsule, Yars, “Sarmat”, “Avangard”, “Concession”, “Rosbor”, “Iskander”, complex targeted programs “Rapier” and “Hypersound”, a number of other topics in order to maximize the use of the existing (developed) key components of VTRSO.
    The use of waste technical solutions in this variant of the combat equipment will reduce technical risk and significantly reduce the cost of developing combat equipment for the promising RTRS.
    from the site dankomm.ru
  19. mahor
    mahor 24 January 2016 11: 05
    0
    Flight tests of the latest heavy liquid intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) RS-28 Sarmat are scheduled to begin in 2016. This was reported to Interfax almost simultaneously from the Russian military department and the space and rocket industry. “The first test launch of the Sarmat missile from the silo launcher of the Plesetsk cosmodrome (Arkhangelsk region) will be carried out approximately in the second half of 2016. He will be preceded by so-called throwing trials, ”said one of the agency’s interlocutors. He recalled that the new missile will be able to deliver a separable warhead weighing up to 10 tons "anywhere in the world through the North and South Poles." According to the Ministry of Defense, serial deliveries of Sarmat ICBMs to the Russian army will begin in the next two to three years. Such a term was called by Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Yuri Borisov. In mid-December, the commander of this Strategic Missile Forces Colonel-General Sergei Karakaev announced the completion of development work on the topic "Sarmatian". This rocket, developed by the State Rocket Center (GRC) them. Makeeva (Miass, Chelyabinsk Region) should replace the ICBM RS-20V Voevoda (according to NATO classification SS-18 Satan), which was developed and carried out for many years by its scheduled maintenance for Ukrainian enterprises. Karakaev said earlier that Sarmat will not be inferior in its characteristics to the RS-20 ICBMs
    . good drinks
  20. dovbnikov
    dovbnikov 5 July 2017 02: 19
    0
    Yuzhnoye Design Bureau began to put its missiles on duty since 1970, and such a masterpiece as Voevoda-Satan cannot be repeated to anyone, there are a lot of secrets there, Russia does not produce height sensors and guidance devices, and no one will sell the country to a terrorist, a stage-breeding engine was done on Yuzhmash, it’s the brain of a rocket, there were 57 false targets plus 10 war blocks, and there were 67, the blocks were divorced so the battle blocks were surrounded by false ones, my advice is Russia don’t waste your money in vain, you’re a simple missile without Ukraine’s participation You cannot bring them into space, they either fall or explode, everything is clear with you, you cannot even bring down the Tomahawk