Russian "Blue" against the American "Trident"

The Sineva submarine-launched ballistic missile surpasses the American counterpart Trident-2 in a number of characteristics
The successful, already 27th launch on December 12 of the Sineva ballistic missile from the strategic nuclear submarine Verkhoturye confirmed that Russia has weapon retribution. The missile covered about 6 km and hit a mock target at the Kamchatka Kura training ground. By the way, the Verkhoturye submarine is a deeply modernized version of the Project 667BDRM nuclear submarines of the Dolphin class (Delta-IV according to NATO classification), which today form the basis of the naval forces of strategic nuclear deterrence.

For those who zealously follow the state of our defensive capabilities, this is not the first and rather familiar message about the successful launches of the Sineva. In the current rather alarming international situation, many are interested in the question of the capabilities of our missile in comparison with the closest foreign analogue - the American missile UGM-133A Trident-II D5 ("Trident-2"), in everyday life - "Trident-2".

Icy "Blue"

The R-29RMU2 Sineva missile is designed to destroy strategically important enemy targets at intercontinental ranges. It is the main armament of the Project 667BDRM strategic missile cruisers and was created on the basis of the R-29RM ICBM. According to NATO classification - SS-N-23 Skiff, according to the START treaty - RSM-54. It is a three-stage liquid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) of the third generation sea-based submarine. After being put into service in 2007, it was planned to release about 100 Sineva missiles.

The launch weight (payload) of the Sineva does not exceed 40,3 tons. The multiple warhead of an ICBM (2,8 tons) at a range of up to 11 km can deliver, depending on the power, from 500 to 4 individually targetable warheads.

The maximum deviation from the target when starting from a depth of up to 55 m does not exceed 500 m, which is ensured by an effective on-board control system using astro-correction and satellite navigation. To overcome the anti-missile defense of the enemy, the Sineva can be equipped with special means and use a flat flight path.

These are the main data of the Sineva ICBM, known from open sources. For comparison, we present the main characteristics of the American missile "Trident-2", which is the closest analogue of the Russian "underwater" sword.

Intercontinental ballistic three-stage missile R-29RMU2 "Sineva". Photo: topwar.ru

American "Trident" - "Trident-2"

The Trident-2 solid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missile was put into service in 1990. It has a lighter modification - "Trident-1" - and is designed to defeat strategically important targets on enemy territory; in terms of tasks to be solved, it is similar to the Russian "Sineva". The missile is equipped with the American submarines SSBN-726 of the Ohio class. In 2007, its mass production was discontinued.

With a launch weight of 59 tons, the Trident-2 ICBM is capable of delivering a payload weighing 2,8 tons to a distance of 7800 km from the launch site. The maximum flight range of 11 km can be achieved by reducing the weight and number of warheads. As a payload, the missile can carry 300 and 8 medium (W14, 88 kt) and low (W475, 76 kt) individually targetable warheads, respectively. The circular probable deviation of these blocks from the target is 100–90 m.

Comparison of the characteristics of the Sineva and Trident-2 missiles

In general, the Sineva is not inferior in its main characteristics, but surpasses the American Trident-2 ICBM in a number of ways. At the same time, our rocket, unlike its overseas counterpart, has a great potential for modernization. In 2011, it was tested and in 2014 a new version of the rocket, the R-29RMU2.1 Liner, was put into service. In addition, the modification of the R-29RMU3, if necessary, can replace the Bulava solid-propellant ICBM.

Our "Sineva" is the best in the world in terms of energy-mass perfection (the ratio of the mass of the combat load to the launch mass of the rocket, reduced to one flight range). This indicator of 46 units significantly exceeds that of the Trident-1 (33) and Trident-2 (37,5) ICBMs, which directly affects the maximum flight range.

"Sineva", launched in October 2008 from the Barents Sea by the nuclear submarine "Tula" from a submerged position, flew 11 km and delivered a model of the warhead to the equatorial Pacific Ocean. This is 547 km higher than that of Trident-200. No missile in the world has such a range margin.

In fact, Russian strategic missile submarines are capable of shelling the central states of the United States from positions directly off their coasts under the protection of surface fleet. You can say without leaving the pier. But there are examples of how an underwater missile carrier carried out a covert, “under-ice” launch of the Sineva from the Arctic latitudes with ice up to two meters thick in the North Pole region.

The Russian intercontinental ballistic missile can be launched by a launch vehicle moving at a speed of up to five knots, from a depth of up to 55 m and a sea state of up to 7 points in any direction along the course of the ship. ICBM "Trident-2" at the same carrier speed can be launched from a depth of up to 30 m and waves up to 6 points. It is also important that immediately after the start, the Sineva steadily reaches a given trajectory, which the Trident cannot boast of. This is due to the fact that the Trident is launched by a pressure accumulator, and the submarine commander, thinking about safety, will always make a choice between an underwater or surface launch.

An important indicator for such weapons is the rate of fire and the possibility of volley fire in the preparation and conduct of a retaliatory strike. This significantly increases the likelihood of breaking through the enemy's missile defense system and inflicting a guaranteed defeat on him. With a maximum launch interval between Sineva ICBMs of up to 10 seconds, this figure for Trident-2 is twice (20 s) higher. And in August 1991, a salvo launch of ammunition from 16 Sineva ICBMs was carried out by the Novomoskovsk submarine, which to date has no analogues in the world.

Our "Sineva" is not inferior to the American missile in the accuracy of hitting the target when equipped with a new medium-power block. It can also be used in a non-nuclear conflict with a high-precision high-explosive fragmentation warhead weighing about 2 tons. To overcome the enemy's missile defense system, in addition to special equipment, "Sineva" can fly to the target and along a flat trajectory. This significantly reduces the likelihood of its timely detection, and hence the likely defeat.

And one more important factor in our time. For all its positive performance, Trident-type ICBMs, we repeat, are difficult to modernize. For more than 25 years of service life, the electronic base has changed significantly, which does not allow local modernization of modern systems in the rocket design at the software and hardware levels.

Finally, another plus of our "Sineva" is the possibility of its use for peaceful purposes. At one time, the Volna and Shtil carriers were created to launch spacecraft into low earth orbit. In 1991-1993, three such launches were carried out, and the conversion "Sineva" entered the Guinness Book of Records as the fastest "mail". In June 1995, this rocket delivered a set of scientific equipment and mail in a special capsule to a range of 9000 km, to Kamchatka.

As a result: the above and other indicators became the basis for German specialists to consider Sineva a masterpiece of naval rocket science.

Comments

[corporal]

I would like to know the opinion of the submariners: "Which rocket would you prefer on board, liquid or solid fuel?"
And then compare.
================================================== =
GRU had to steal the recipe for a long time. Although it didn’t work out, it means it didn’t work out.

[Andrey NM]

During the entire service life of the 3M-37 rocket and its modifications, there was not a single (pah-pah) emergency and not a single failure during launches due to the fault of the product, with the exception of the first Behemoth in 1989, but there the design miscalculation turned out to be the fault when finalizing the products when, instead of standard components, a solution of "chemistry" was poured, because of which an emergency occurred during the prelaunch. It was also proposed to use a banal sugar syrup, which was well suited in terms of density, but the leader with a large spot on his head squeezed 400 tons of sugar, it was then sold by coupons. Solid rockets still have a "liquid" third stage, so everything is conditional. And one more thing ... In our country, we do not have such a great experience in operating sea-based solid-propellant ICBMs. These are boats of the 941st project and one "alteration" of the 667th project K-140. About the high-explosive fragmentation "head". There was only an idea, but not actually implemented, as far as is known. We have always been better at liquid-propellant rockets, while the Americans have "solid" ones. The upside is that the liquid theme is more versatile. They fly on liquid and into space. And if the solid fuel is "started", then everything, neither stop nor adjust the thrust normally. This is oversimplified, of course, but I hope you get the idea. There are also difficulties with thrust vector control, and a number of other points. For solid fuel products, the fuel itself, during storage, eventually becomes blasting, i.e. can "bang" from a careless blow. In general, any military product requires careful and respectful handling.

One remark to the article - what kind of specialists do the Germans now have in the field of rocket science? Especially in the field of sea-based ICBMs?

[corporal]

Quote: Andrey NM

It was also proposed to use a banal sugar syrup,

Instead of fuel?
Or how about the weight?
Explain this point, it became interesting.

[Andrey NM]

In Behemoth, the idea was to check the behavior of the ship during the pre-launch, only two pieces left the target, the rest worked only to get out of the water with the first stage. For the rest, it was precisely the imitation of the mass and operation of the systems that was needed.

[Simple]

Quote: Andrey NM

In Behemoth, the idea was to test the behavior of the ship during the pre-launch,

?TWO?

The task was: the implementation of the experimental salvo rocket fire with rpk SN project 667 BDRM on the topic "Begemot-1" (December 1989)
During the first pre-launch preparation on the K-54 in December 1989. out of 16 dummy missiles recruited in a salvo 5 (30% of ammunition) were automatically excluded from the pre-launch preparation process on the signal "off-design tank pressurization", which led to the correct and natural decision of the commander and chief of fire (k / a Salnikov) - to stop pre-launch preparation. The corresponding command was issued to the commander of the BCH-2. Further actions to launch a second missile attack were unreasonable and ill-conceived. Instead of analyzing the course of the first AMS and finding out why there were excluded 5 missiles (on the basis of the results of such an analysis, it was possible to immediately return the ship to the base) actions began on the ship to complete the task at any cost, at the given exit of the ship and before the new year 1990, which ultimately led to an emergency, as a result of which one layout exploded in the mine, and the oxidizer was forced to drain from the rest of the emergency ones.

[Alex_2015]

At the 6th mine, the inscription periodically appeared: "Shooting with lids"

[Simple]

Quote: Alex_2015

the inscription appeared: "Shooting caps"

there is simply no such inscription on the SLA.

Quote: Alex_2015

"off-design pressurization of tanks"

And blew the lid off.

Quote: Alex_2015

(14 pieces) + 2 real ones.

it's in "B-2"
if I'm not mistaken in B-1 they wanted 5 pieces

[Andrey NM]

Respected Simple, actually it was the second building of the BDRM, K-84, and not K-54. The fact of the matter is that the use of that same chemical solution led to this emergency situation. The worst thing is that these properties appeared only after a certain period of storage of products, before that test firing went without problems. It is good that the rest of the products remained in the mines, which made it possible to sort out the problem. The sugar solution was offered by one of the civilian specialists, at that time a doctor of sciences, unfortunately he died 2 years ago from a stroke. I later served with one of the KGSs in the same crew, he was transferred with a promotion, so I know first-hand who, where and how ran around the compartments during the situation. Yes, the sixth cover was torn off, it flew over the hull, pierced the Central City Hospital in the region of the left side of the 2nd compartment and drowned. On the second "behemoth" the problem of mass imitation was solved in a different way. Two products were practical, the rest, as you say, "dummy".

[Simple]

Quote: Andrey NM

it was the second corps of the BDRM, K-84, not K-54.

I know .
In June 1989 in the Barents Sea from a submarine of project 667 BDRM
"Yekaterinburg" were performed with positive results:
a single launch and a two-rocket salvo. In August-September of the same year, there were
refueled and sent to Severodvinsk sixteen experimental missiles (3 M-37 BK) for salvo firing with full ammunition.

3 M-37 BK is refueled at the factory with the same standard component as the combat one for 20 seconds of remote control operation.
No "experimental"

Quote: Andrey NM

chemical solution

-no.
And sugar syrup


In December 1989, the tests were unsuccessful due to the failure of pre-launch preparations due to abnormal pressurization of the tanks five out of sixteenand missiles recruited into the salvo (December 5) and the boat leaving the launch corridor of depths (December 26).

The fault detection, carried out by specialists from the Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering and the Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant, determined that the cause of abnormal pressurization was the obstruction of the line
pressure control in fuel tank, due to electrochemical corrosion of pipeline walls. After updating the documentation, the liquid fuel simulant (It remains a mystery to me what was there, because 3 M-37 BK is refueled with a standard component for 20 seconds of operation, we can conclude that instead of ballast, this component swelled in 2 and 3) , which caused corrosion, was replaced with metal ballast and quartz sand. The Commission on military-industrial issues decided to conduct a repeated salvo launch of a full missile ammunition load, consisting of fourteen experimental and two
standard missiles R-29 RM.

[Alex_2015]

BegeMot \u14d BM \u2d Throw Dummy (XNUMX pieces) + XNUMX real ones.

[Simple]

Quote: Corporal

Explain this point, it became interesting.

a person wedges on sweets.

Quote: Andrey NM

For the rest, it was necessary simulation of mass and operation of systems.

only 40-45% concentration of sugar in water replaces its mass AT (well, or density)?

and p 793 kg / m³ for UDMH "lover of sweets" probably reached by gassing the syrup, or (why be shy?) by filling the tank with ether.
Moreover, well, it doesn’t reach, what if

Quote: Andrey NM

the rest worked only to get out of the water with the first stage.

then for the simulator of the mass of the remaining steps, at least sand, at least sawdust, at least a cast-iron blank cast in the CM is enough.
This is if you do NOT check the performance

Quote: Just

pressure alarm

, other fittings, etc.

[Simple]

Quote: Andrey NM

For the entire period of service of the 3M-37 rocket and its modifications, there was not a single (pah-pah) emergency

there were many unsuccessful launches.
And the service...
As long as the ICBM is not deampulized, it does not pose a danger. So with ICBMs with rocket engines from the 2nd generation, since the 1970s.

Quote: Andrey NM

but the design miscalculation turned out to be the fault when finalizing the products,

?
An accident that sometimes attributed to the R-29RM missile, took place in 1989 during tests on the topic "Behemoth" and it did not happen with a rocket, but with its layout. The cause of the accident was a design error (the corrosive properties of the material of the pressure indicator tube in the fuel simulator environment were not taken into account, as a result of which its patency was impaired) in combination with a violation of the operational documentation, which led to the shutdown of the blocking pressure indicators.

Quote: Andrey NM

but there the design miscalculation turned out to be to blame when finalizing the products, when instead of the standard components a solution of "chemistry" was poured,

UDMH + AT. Ampoule ONLY at the FACTORY-manufacturer. What sugar? What syrup? What 400tn?
to simulate the density, viscosity, aggressiveness of ATNDMG, sugar syrup is not needed. It's stupidity
Ampulization by welding filling and drain valves on the ZI. This excluded:
- full-time refueling of missiles on the shore;
- refueling of submarine tanks from the shore;
- refueling of missiles from submarine tanks;
- and also turned out to be superfluous tanks for storing rocket fuel at the bases.

Quote: Andrey NM

Solid rockets still have a "liquid" third stage, so everything is conditional

- resistance of missiles to the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion

Quote: Andrey NM

In our country, we do not have such extensive experience in operating sea-based solid-propellant ICBMs.

- from 1960 to 1990 domestic solid propellant naval ballistic missiles failed to achieve performance characteristics, comparable neither to our liquid nor to American solid fuel.

Quote: Andrey NM

There are also difficulties with thrust vector control, and a number of other points.

In the trident 2 D5, the engines of all three stages have a swinging recessed nozzle with UVT (in pitch and yaw)

Quote: Andrey NM

For solid fuel products, the fuel itself, during storage, eventually becomes blasting, i.e. can "bang" from a careless blow

The consequences of recent submarine missile accidents depend more on the architecture of the submarine, not on the type of fuel used. So, for example, the accident with the R-39 on a Project 941 submarine in 1991, associated with the destruction of a missile, occurred after abnormal pressurization of the missile silo, and not the interstage compartment, with a combination of two faults.

The achieved service life of liquid-propellant and solid-propellant rockets as a result of the work carried out to extend the service life is the same - 12 years over the warranty period.

[Andrey NM]

Quote: Just

there were many unsuccessful launches

Can you tell me when?

The accident, which is sometimes attributed to the R-29RM rocket, took place in 1989 during tests on the Begemot theme and it happened not with the rocket, but with its mock-up. The cause of the accident was a design error (the corrosive properties of the material of the pressure indicator tube in the fuel simulator environment were not taken into account, as a result of which its patency was impaired) in combination with a violation of the operational documentation, which led to the shutdown of the blocking pressure indicators.

Do not confuse you with a model with a rocket specially designed for testing, These are different products.

UDMH + AT. Ampoule ONLY at the FACTORY-manufacturer. What sugar? What syrup? What 400tn?
to simulate the density, viscosity, aggressiveness of ATNDMG, sugar syrup is not needed. It's stupidity

No one set the task of imitating the aggressiveness of the SRT. The task was to simulate the density and, accordingly, the mass of the components, for this there were various proposals, including a sugar solution. And they bang a solution of zinc nitrate, which gave a surprise.

[Simple]

Quote: Andrey NM

Can you tell me when?

SKB-385, Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering, SRC "KB im. Academician V.P. Makeev
November 1982, on a ground stand in 1983, from K-51 "Named after the XXVI Congress of the CPSU" 667BDRM in 1983-1984 at the State Central Test Site near Severodvinsk (12 launches were performed, of which 10 were recognized as successful), July 27, 1985 two-rocket gulp, which is recognized as unsuccessful

Quote: Andrey NM

Do not confuse you with a model with a rocket specially designed for testing, These are different products.

I don't usually get confused. And what?
Are you talking about some kind of mock-up with sugar syrup?

Quote: Andrey NM

The task was to simulate the density and, accordingly, the mass of the components,

In order to imitate the density, even my children do not need sugar syrup. This is stupidity.

Quote: Andrey NM

The task was to simulate the density

Quote: Just

The task was: the implementation of the experimental salvo rocket fire with rpk SN project 667 BDRM on the topic "Begemot-1" (December 1989)

Rough:
passed the test, the rocket shaft is filled with water and the pressure in it is equalized with the outboard. Then the lid of the rocket silo opens. After opening the lid of the mine, the first-stage rocket engine is launched directly into it. So that the mine is not blown to smithereens, the rocket engine is launched in a throttled mode (at partial power) and it reaches this low power relatively smoothly, according to a special program. In the throttled mode of the thrust of the first stage engine, the rocket exits the mine, passes the underwater launch site and, and when it jumps to the surface, the first stage engine is switched to maximum, at which it works until the first stage separates.
experimenting with syrup is nothing.
SLBMs simply won’t leave the mine (we don’t have a fall or a steam generator).

[mahor]

Failures were on the R-27 car due to an unsuccessful BSAU. After testing, there were no failures, except for the mistakes of the sailors.

[Andrey NM]

Quote: Just

Ampulization by welding filling and drain valves on the ZI. This excluded:
- full-time refueling of missiles on the shore;
- refueling of submarine tanks from the shore;
- refueling of missiles from submarine tanks;
- and also turned out to be superfluous tanks for storing rocket fuel at the bases

The command "raise the launch pad at a creeping speed" and any refueling are not relevant from the D-4 complex. What are we talking about?

Quote: Just

From 1960 to 1990, domestic solid-fuel marine ballistic missiles were not able to achieve tactical and technical characteristics comparable to either our liquid or American solid fuel

Have you surpassed it now?

The consequences of recent submarine missile accidents depend more on the architecture of the submarine than on the type of fuel used. So, for example, the accident with the R-39 on a Project 941 submarine in 1991, associated with the destruction of a rocket, occurred after abnormal pressurization of the missile silo, and not the interstage compartment, with a combination of two malfunctions

And here the architecture of the submarine? In general, what do you mean by this? And I know that the emergency worker, he quickly quit then. Gouging and ignorance of the materiel - that's the reason for that accident.

Quote: Just

The achieved service life of liquid and solid rockets as a result of the work carried out to extend the service life is the same - 12 years over the warranty period

I don’t know about “solid”, but for “liquid” the number is somewhat different, but close. Yes, and there is no such thing as "de-ampulization", they always said "de-ampulization".

It is much easier to put the engine on a gimbal than to come up with a seal for a swinging nozzle, where the temperature and pressure are not small, and there is nothing to cool.

[Simple]

Quote: Andrey NM

What is it about?

About sugar, about syrup.
All at the factory, therefore

Quote: Andrey NM

Sugar solution was offered by one of the civilian specialists,

no way possible

Quote: Andrey NM

Have you surpassed it now?

no, of course. Even the medals for Sochi-2014 were made at a chemical plant in the UAE.
Or do you believe that there are "military" calipers, screwdrivers, chemical components, etc.?

Quote: Andrey NM

what do you mean by that?

Why me?
In the practice of submarine shipbuilding submarine architecture is understood as the features of the external appearance, shape and design of the hull, fencing of the cabin, plumage and other protruding parts.

The main elements that make up the architecture of the submarine usually include:
the shape of the outer contours of the hull and protruding parts;
architectural and structural type of submarine, which, depending on the presence of a light hull along the length of a strong hull, can be called:
single-hull - there is no light body along the entire length;
double-hull - a light body covers a durable body along its entire length;
mixed or partially single-hull - a combination of single-hull and double-hull sections along the length of the strong hull;
the configuration of the pressure hull and the distribution of space inside it into functional or other components by inter-compartment bulkheads, decks, platforms, etc.;
number and arrangement of propeller shafts.
The concept of "architecture" may include other features of the submarine that affect its appearance:
type, design and location of propulsors (e.g. propeller, jet propulsion, propeller screw, etc.);
features of the location of the main types of weapons, weapons;
composition, design and location of technical means that ensure the survivability of submarines.

Quote: Andrey NM

there is no such thing as "de-ampulization", they always said "de-ampulization".

It doesn't change the essence
http://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionary/details_rvsn.htm?id=12574@mor
fDictionary
"Rasampulization" - there is no such thing
http://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionary/listrvsn.htm

Quote: Andrey NM

I don't know about "solid" ones, but "liquid" numbers are somewhat different, but close

I'm talking about reality.

"Thanks to ampulization, a rocket with a liquid-propellant rocket engine can be on combat duty in a refueled state for up to 20 years or more."

Quote: Andrey NM

Much easier to put the engine on a gimbal

LRE "is not simpler". It is many times more complicated and more expensive. And the lack of a camera (TTRD, the camera itself), in fact, tanks, pressurization, TNA, etc. ...
Solid propellant rocket engines are extremely simple in design. They essentially have two main parts: the combustion chamber and the jet nozzle. The combustion chamber itself serves as the fuel tank.
but to get traction (not ut, and ui) in hundreds (thousands) tons, you need to do F-1 or a bunch. What is not acceptable for military purposes

[Andrey NM]

Quote: Just

In the practice of underwater shipbuilding, the architecture of a submarine is understood as the features of the external appearance, shape and design of the hull, wheelhouse fencing, plumage and other protruding parts.

Dear intern, how does the shape of the fins and protrusions affect the boost parameters?
In the practice of Soviet and Russian boats were double-hulled, and one and a half-hulled, single-hulled boats have not received distribution in our country. That's how I was taught in the school and the academy. Maybe the teachers there were wrong, I don't know.
In order to talk about the terms used, you need not to delve into the Internet, but to serve on these ships and work at the manufacturing plant. Are you going to Krasnoyarsk? KRASMASH now needs different specialists.
By the way, how much is the 941st project?
I’m embarrassed to ask, why was zinc nitrate poured into the product? And what were the alternatives?
How is a layout different from a product?

About sugar, about syrup.
All at the factory, therefore
Quote: Andrew NM
Sugar solution was offered by one of the civilian specialists,
no way possible

What was the rank of Viktor Petrovich Makeev? Or is it civilian? And Solomon? And what kind of epaulettes do representatives of warranty supervision wear?

Don't talk about throttling anymore. There is a time to enter the mode, but there is no connection with any throttling. All stages there have to be learned by heart "second by second". I didn’t seem to have memory lapses, although a sufficient number of years have passed. Well taught.
Yes, and "SLA" - there is no such concept there either. Control equipment has a different name and abbreviation.

Quote: Just

I'm talking about reality.

And I'm talking about specific numbers and deadlines.

Quote: Just

SKB-385, Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering, SRC "KB im. Academician V.P. Makeev
November 1982, on a ground stand in 1983, from K-51 "Named after the XXVI Congress of the CPSU" 667BDRM in 1983-1984 at the State Central Test Site near Severodvinsk (12 launches were performed, of which 10 were recognized as successful), July 27, 1985 two-rocket gulp, which is recognized as unsuccessful

Again. During the operation after being put into service, there was not a single unsuccessful launch, as well as an emergency. We have already talked about the first "behemoth". What about the testing and development stage? Many products and at what complexes at the stages before being put into service flew immediately and without comment?

[Simple]

Quote: Andrey NM

Dear intern,

Dear narcissistic "submariner specialist" .... do not burst with skepticism!
The question was:

Quote: Andrey NM

what do you mean by that?

(under "PL architecture").
I answered. Then you can puff up and mention the peiskop in sue

Quote: Andrey NM

To talk about the terms used, you need not to delve into the Internet

I myself will decide what I "need" and what is not "you are our sugar syrup" retelling of other people's tales.

Quote: Andrey NM

In the Behemoth the idea was to check the behavior of the ship during the pre-launch, the target went only two pieces, the rest worked only on the first step out of the water.

And "need" your wife indicate (if any)

Quote: Andrey NM

And what were the alternatives?

793 kg/m³ UDMH, AT 1,44 g/cm³

Sea water at T \u20d 1,01g C has 1,05–1,3 g / cm³, but the dead sea is 1,4-XNUMX g / sq. cm³
http://www.calc.ru/plotnost-vody.html
Glycerin 1,260g/sq. cm³

Vaseline oil 0,800g/sq. cm³, Poplar density 0,350 - 0,500g/sq. cm³.
Do you need to explain?
And you, with a decommissioned sack with a 40-45% concentration of sugar in water at T = 15 ° C, are running around.
Stupidity? Oh yeah!
In order to simulate the alignment and mass of the fuel component in the rocket tank, I personally do not need sugar syrup and zinc nitrate (for reference, the metal salt is not poured, the SOLUTION is poured), too.

Quote: Andrey NM

Don't talk about throttling anymore

--->

Quote: Just

indicate to your wife (if any)

Quote: Andrey NM

And I'm talking about specific numbers and deadlines.

in the verbiage you wrote, except for rumors (of others) - not a single SPECIFIC number

Quote: Andrey NM

Again. During the operation after acceptance into service, there was not a single unsuccessful launch

Once again, for those who cannot read:

Quote: Just

there were many unsuccessful launches .
And the service...
As long as the ICBM is not deampulized, it does not pose a danger. So with ICBMs with rocket engines from the 2nd generation, since the 1970s.

the question was

Quote: Andrey NM

Can you tell me when?

Answer given.
Questions?

Quote: Andrey NM

During operation after acceptance into service, not a single unsuccessful launch

Did I claim otherwise?

[Andrey NM]

Quote: Just

In order to simulate the alignment and mass of the fuel component in the rocket tank, I personally do not need sugar syrup and zinc nitrate (for reference, the metal salt is not poured, the SOLUTION is poured), too.

When reprinting, correct errors, otherwise square cubic centimeters are not very somehow ...
It was about a solution, if you read carefully, but did you think that you poured powder there? Well, sorry.

The cause of the accident was a design error (the corrosion properties of the material of the pressure signaling tube in the fuel simulator environment were not taken into account, as a result of which its patency was impaired)

So what was the fuel simulator? Wednesday is not the day of the week, is it?

Quote: Andrew NM
Again. During the operation after acceptance into service, there was not a single unsuccessful launch

Once again, for those who cannot read:
Quote: Just
there were many unsuccessful launches.
And the service...
As long as the ICBM is not deampulized, it does not pose a danger. So with ICBMs with rocket engines from the 2nd generation, since the 1970s.

You contradict yourself. When were there unsuccessful launches after the adoption of the complex?
Unlike you, I have no storytellers. Here is a link to those same "storytellers" (I even saw myself in those photos among the "storytellers") from the article: http://krasm.com/Files/1994-Sineva%203-4%20%282015%29.pdf
And if you are an understanding person, then no one will tell you specific things here (and not only). And about the "behemoths" - a quarter of a century has already passed.

And "need" your wife indicate (if any)

Well, you still have to pout your lips and burst into tears. Okay, I apologize if I overdid it somewhere. But there really is no throttling, you will forgive.

[Simple]

Quote: Andrey NM

When reprinting, correct errors,

I'm not going to, Sloth. The smart one will understand, but the UO will not help ^ 2 or ^ 3.
it’s full of worthless proofreaders in the world who, like impotent people, can’t do anything wrong, but why should they lose their jobs? (And cut off conceit?)

Quote: Andrey NM

It was about a solution, if you read carefully, but did you think that you poured powder there?

Let's go back to the origins.

Quote: Andrey NM

The sugar solution was offered by one of the civilian specialists

Quote: Andrey NM

. It was also proposed to use a banal sugar syrup, which was well suited in terms of density

You, as a "specialist" who undoubtedly have an education in grade 10 .... have not thought about what "sugar syrup" is for (again, pour either 40% or 45% sugar from the volume fraction of water, T control) .. .WHAT WOULD recreate the density of AT?
I explained on my fingers how to do it cheaply and cheerfully and without kicking Gorbachev.
And how is it with UDMH?
Carbonated CO2?

Quote: Andrey NM

So what was the fuel simulator? Wednesday is not the day of the week, is it?

Experimental disposable rocket (3 M-37 BK) Structurally, the 3 M-37 BK is a single-stage missile consisting of a carrier and a front compartment. The carrier is an all-welded construction with a first-stage engine, spare fuel tanks oxidizer and fuel for 20 seconds engine work, with ballast tanks, necessary fittings and on-board cable network. in ballast tanks hermetic containers are placed, simulating the free volumes of the second stage to ensure regular pre-launch preparation,metal cargo. Part of the volumes of ballast tanks filled with dry quartz sand, which together with metal weights provides characteristics corresponding to a regular rocket. The forward compartment consists of an instrument compartment and a third stage simulator. Nearly complete fuel burnout the use of metal weights and sand in ballast tanks ensures the environmental cleanliness of the sea during field tests.

Quote: Andrey NM

after the adoption of the complex?

I never wrote/said this. don't be like shit.

Quote: Andrey NM

Well, you still have to pout your lips and burst into tears. Okay, I apologize if I overdid it somewhere. .. Forgive me.

Nothing, I got used to it and understood. Here, on the site, the main argument is: "Vicki" (face on the table, for using it) and an allegedly moth-eaten tunic with shoulder straps in the closet.

[Simple]

Quote: Andrey NM

But there really is no throttling,

1) wrote the same

Quote: Just

Rough:

2) Throttling (drosseln - limit, turn off) - lowering the pressure of gas or steam when flowing through the narrowing of the pipeline passage channel.
and in particular:
3) For taxiways: throttling is a reduction in fuel consumption. Need to to control the amount of thrust without reducing the specific impulse. In fact - the possibility of its reduction by tens of percent of the face value.
-Sudakov V.S., Kotelnikova R.N., Chvanov V.K. On the history of the development of the RD-270 liquid-propellant rocket engine for the UR-700 launch vehicle. XXXVI Readings in memory of K.E. Tsiolkovsky, Kaluga, 2001
-

[Andrey NM]

About 3M-37BK - everything is correct, but for the second "hippopotamus", otherwise there would not have been a phrase about the imitation of components that you cited earlier regarding the accident of the first hippopotamus.

[Simple]

Quote: Andrey NM

but for the second "hippopotamus", otherwise there would not have been a phrase about the imitation of components that you cited earlier regarding the accident of the first hippopotamus.

Quote: Just

In June 1989 in the Barents Sea from a submarine of project 667 BDRM
"Yekaterinburg" were performed with positive results:
a single launch and a two-rocket salvo. In August-September of the same year, sixteen experimental missiles (3 M-37 BK) were refueled and sent to Severodvinsk for salvo firing with full ammunition ..

Quote: Just

In December 1989, the tests were unsuccessful due to the disruption of pre-launch preparations due to abnormal pressurization of the tanks of five of the sixteen missiles recruited in a salvo (December 5) and the boat leaving the launch depth corridor (December 26).
Next comes the differences...
The fault detection, carried out by specialists from the Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering and the Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant, determined that the cause of abnormal pressurization was the obstruction of the line
pressure control in the fuel tank, due to electrochemical corrosion of the pipeline walls. After updating the documentation, the liquid fuel simulant (It remains a mystery to me what was there, because 3 M-37 BK is refueled with a standard component for 20 seconds of operation, we can conclude that instead of ballast, this component swelled in 2 and 3) , which caused corrosion, was replaced with metal ballast and quartz sand. The Commission on military-industrial issues decided to conduct a repeated salvo launch of a full missile ammunition load, consisting of fourteen experimental and two
standard missiles R-29 RM.

already from the beginning of the "project" there was fuel and oxidizer + ballast.
What "chemical" is a mystery to me.
In any case, "sugar syrup" is stupid to use for imitation.
A pipe along the axis of the tank, with a calculated diameter (volume), covered with quartz sand - solves all problems (including ecology)

[Andrey NM]

I wrote in private. So that the riddles are dispelled :).

[Andrey NM]

Quote: Just

A pipe along the axis of the tank, with a calculated diameter (volume), covered with quartz sand - solves all problems (including ecology)

Everything is correct, the main thing here is that the mass depart by points. Why in the first case they decided to pour something, this is a question to the one who invented it all.

[mahor]

Don't talk about throttling anymore. There is a time to enter the mode, but there is no connection with any throttling. All stages there have to be learned by heart "second by second". I didn’t seem to have memory lapses, although a sufficient number of years have passed. Well taught.
Yes, and "SLA" - there is no such concept there either. Control equipment has a different name and abbreviation.

At start-up, steering engines are started, and the main one is started after the machine leaves the mine ... The system is called "steam-gas" ...

[mahor]

LRE "is not simpler". It is many times more complicated and more expensive. And the lack of a camera (TTRD, the camera itself), in fact, tanks, pressurization, TNA, etc. ...
Solid propellant rocket engines are extremely simple in design. They essentially have two main parts: the combustion chamber and the jet nozzle. The combustion chamber itself serves as the fuel tank.
and in order to get a thrust (not ut, and ui) of hundreds (thousands) of tons, you need to do F-1 or a bunch. What is not acceptable for military purposes

Solid propellant rocket engines are 3-5 times more expensive than liquid-propellant ones precisely because of expensive equipment and materials in production. One welding in an argon environment is worth something ...

[11 black]

Quote: Corporal

I would like to know the opinion of the submariners: "Which rocket would you prefer on board, liquid or solid fuel?"
And then compare.

Sineva for all 27 launches did not give a single misfire, NONE, 100% reliability + high missile defense breakthrough potential - a wonderful missile.
Here is one little-known video, but also great - pay attention to the thickness of the ice that the dolphin breaks through.

[Andrey NM]

Sergei Rachuk is now deputy chief of the Naval Academy, rear admiral, Hero of the Russian Federation. The video was made for the anniversary of KRASMASH.

[11 black]

Yes, some wise guy put it on the net a long time ago ...
And Sergei Rachuk - what can I say, the country stands on such people, if only there were more of them.

[Andrey NM]

And Palych, a mechanic, died a few years ago. A good guy, even the tongue does not turn to say - was. He also jumps in the frames here. He was a little over forty...

[Platonich]

This is a beauty, how Russian women will stop the enemy at a gallop!

[vglazunov]

When washing blue, tide is better. Blue is a good way to cleanse or protect the world from villains.

[podgornovea]

According to the characteristics of the Bulava, it is inferior to the Sineva, except for the convenience of storage and operation.
Thrown weight 1150kg versus 2800, a difference of 1650kg can normally be hung up with additional equipment to break through the missile defense system in the final section of the trajectory. It seems that they did so on the Liner. Liquid rockets have always won in energy and energy-mass perfection.
With modern materials, encapsulation can be made reliable and safe no worse than with solid fuel.

[Andrey NM]

And they are reliable. All accidents on liquid-propellant rockets during storage and while they were on ships, starting from project 667b and later, were due to the fault of the personnel. Something was not disconnected there, they violated the regulations during loading, etc. There were moments when the personnel were simply tortured by all sorts of organizational periods, etc., but this is not the fault of technology. On 667a, the products were still "raw", which led to various emergency situations. But the same K-219 died not due to the fault of the product, but due to the fault of the leaky cover of the mine, which led to its filling and only then the destruction and explosion of the product. There were unsuccessful launches on the "beeches" and BDRs, on the BDRMs during the test period too, but during the operation everything is fine, with the exception of the already named first Behemoth, where the products were non-standard.

[mahor]

But the same K-219 died not due to the fault of the product, but due to the fault of the leaky cover of the mine, which led to its filling and only then the destruction and explosion of the product.

If you open the shaft cover with a crane when the lifting hydraulic system is faulty, then this may not be the case with the boat ...

[mahor]

According to the characteristics of the Bulava, it is inferior to the Sineva, except for the convenience of storage and operation.
Thrown weight 1150kg versus 2800, a difference of 1650kg can normally be hung up with additional equipment to break through the missile defense system in the final section of the trajectory. It seems that they did so on the Liner. Liquid rockets have always won in energy and energy-mass perfection.
With modern materials, encapsulation can be made reliable and safe no worse than with solid fuel.

MIT promised to throw such a weight with a rocket mass of 27 tons. That's why he won the competition. And here is the result...

[V.ic]

Splashed "Blue", splashed,
On the surface of the sea, heated ...
Further into the sky she flew away
Illuminating them with a shining light
And deliver the warhead where needed
This will be a worthy answer!

[wicked pinnochio]

all the same, we have beautiful names for missiles and different systems, not like the shtatovs

[antiexpert]

everyone somehow forgets that Sineva was developed in the 80s of the last century, and in all respects surpasses the mace - but the mace is Moscow, and Sineva is some kind of town deep in the Ural ores - this is where all the unwillingness to develop the project comes from )))

[Garris199]

but the mace is Moscow, and Sineva is some kind of town in the depths of the Ural ores - that's where all the reluctance to develop the project comes from)))

What the hell? Drink something choleretic.

[Andrey NM]

Dear, I will give you an excerpt from an article in the Krasmashevsky newspaper, these are the words of one of the former heads of the military representation. I gave you a link to the newspaper a little higher in my messages. Read and decide if there was a fuss about "pulling the blanket over yourself" or not.

I would like to give an example from my own experience. In 1999, thanks to the titanic efforts of Viktor Kirillovich Gupalov, Director General of KRASMASH, there was hope for the resumption of production of RSM-54U at the Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant. It was at this time that I received an order from the head of the URAV of the Navy to prepare a report on the impossibility of carrying out such work with reference to the fact that KMZ had not produced missiles for several years, and all the cooperation even more. I realized that with my hands the opponents of liquid rockets want to prevent this order from being received. He sent his deputies to cooperation enterprises: one to the Urals, the other to Moscow and St. Petersburg. A few days later, I had the minutes of meetings between the management of these enterprises and the VP MO with them on readiness to start resuming production and with specific proposals for organizing work. That's when I sent my report along with these protocols to Moscow, the head of the URAV Navy, about the readiness of Krasmash and cooperation enterprises to resume production of the rocket, which later became known as Sineva.

[Zigmars]

"Sineva" is a very good rocket, but for all its advantages, it has a serious drawback - a launch method called "wet start". A nuclear submarine needs to spend a certain amount of time preparing for firing - and therefore it cannot be instantly combat ready. In addition, the noise generated during the filling of the hull with seawater can unmask the submarine and make it vulnerable to enemy attacks.
Is it really such a difficult task: to create a liquid-propellant SLBM, the launch of which would not require the injection of sea water, but would come, for example, from a TPK?!...

[zennon]

Quote from rudolf

It’s just that all of us suddenly became preoccupied with solid fuel a la Trident, without realizing it, but in the name of what?

But this one wanted to establish itself. He declared that he would do it better and cheaper. He did it ... The last hedgehog in the Khimki forest knows that the momentum of the TTD thrust will not get close to the LRE. how much money we spent on his farts! There are teapots at the assembly, parts that are not conditioned are slipped to him, saboteurs are all around.

[Boa kaa]

Quote from rudolf

It’s just that all of us suddenly became preoccupied with solid fuel a la Trident, without realizing it, but in the name of what?

Hello Volchara! Glad to hear you again on the site, comrade!
A couple of remarks, if the subfloor allows.
1. The mace is accepted because SM-3 does not have time to take it on the OUT. The speed of the expiration of gases of solid propellant rocket engines is much higher than that of a liquid propellant rocket engine. Therefore, the OUT of the Mace is 2 times shorter than that of the Sineva.
2. The mace is made (whether we like it or not) using the technologies of the early 21st century. Composite cocoon with sensors sewn into it, SES tires, etc. - more resistant to energy weapons such as beam, laser ... the Americans have already tested and shot down a ballistic missile at D = 80km.
3. The mass-dimensions of the Mace are better than those of the Sineva. Therefore, 955s do not "hump" like BDRMs. Of course there is an add-on, but not up to 3/4 of the height of the retractable fence!
PS. Many thanks to Andrey NM and Prosto Neighbor. I got some interesting info on BM for myself.
Best regards,

[sevtrash]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

The speed of the expiration of gases of solid propellant rocket engines is much higher than that of a liquid propellant rocket engine.

The specific impulse of liquid rocket engines is higher than solid propellant ones, somewhere around 4600 m/s and 2600 m/s, respectively.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: sevtrash

The specific impulse of liquid rocket engines is higher

Sergei! On this issue, we measured ourselves with tusks and feathers with Oleg Kaptsov, respected by me (personally!). Repeat do not consider it necessary. If you are very interested - see http://topwar.ru/68054-sineva-protiv-traydent-2.html#
Best regards, KAA

[Andrey NM]

Hello, drag boss! With coming! About laser weapons. A flat trajectory allows you to get away from this problem, but the range is somewhat reduced, not critical. About dimensions. The diameter of the PK 955 of the open source project is more than 13 meters, while the BDRM has only 11,2 meters. If you put "Sineva" into "Borka", then it will not stick out much either. Well, yes, the difference in length is more than 2 meters, but Sinev is thinner in diameter. Yes, you can edit it if you want. Something tells me that Sineva will serve us for a very long time. A very successful car.
And about "Borea" I heard back in the early 80s, when "the elders were arguing in the kitchen."

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Andrey NM

Hello, drag boss! With coming!

And you too, Andrew! I agree with everything, but...
A couple of words. 2m in diameter is 1m in radius.

Quote: Andrey NM

the difference in length is more than 2 meters, but in diameter

Do not cheat! The diameter differs by 0,1 m, and the length - by 3,3 m (!) Then, what to do with the pumps?

Quote: Andrey NM

Yes, you can edit it if you want.

So no one argues. But these are maskvachi! MIT is called. The poplar flew, but the Bark did not. And here is the idea of ​​universal standardization and mutual substitution of parts, assemblies and mechanisms. Yes, and Kuraedov turned out to be unstable ...

Quote: Andrey NM

Blue will serve us for a very long time. A very successful car.

I agree to all 155%!
But here's what confuses me: BDRMs will serve until the age of 30, and then? Unless, of course, the R-29RMU3 will be put on Borki.
Sincerely, Udav!

[mahor]

1. The mace is accepted because SM-3 does not have time to take it on the OUT. The speed of the expiration of gases of solid propellant rocket engines is much higher than that of a liquid propellant rocket engine. Therefore, the OUT of the Mace is 2 times shorter than that of the Sineva.
2. The mace is made (whether we like it or not) using the technologies of the early 21st century. Composite cocoon with sensors sewn into it, SES tires, etc. - more resistant to energy weapons such as beam, laser ... the Americans have already tested and shot down a ballistic missile at D = 80km.
3. The mass-dimensions of the Mace are better than those of the Sineva. Therefore, 955s do not "hump" like BDRMs. Of course there is an add-on, but not up to 3/4 of the height of the retractable fence!
1. Already in time, even Dankomm admitted this.
2. What prevents Sineva from making 21st century technologies? There are reserves..
3. Increase the size of the boat.. What's the problem?

[Markiz_A]

1. SM-3 and do not take it on the Active Segment of the Trajectory, because The Mace's flat flight altitude allows the SM-3 to intercept it throughout its flight.
2. This may be the technology of the 21st century for Russia, but for America it is the technology of the second half of the 20th.
3. And for example, neither the Americans, nor the British, nor the French have boats humpbacked at all, although they are made using "technologies of the 20th century." Apparently their 20th century technology is more advanced than our 21st.

[Simple]

Quote: Zigmars

starting method called "wet start". A nuclear submarine needs to spend a certain amount of time preparing for firing - and therefore it cannot be instantly combat ready. In addition, the noise generated during the filling of the hull with seawater can unmask the submarine and make it vulnerable to enemy attacks.

Do you think the Mk35 mod 1 missile storage and launch system makes less noise and makes shooting faster?

Before start-up, excess pressure is created in the mine. A powder pressure accumulator (PAP) is installed in each mine to form a vapor-gas mixture. The launcher has a branch pipe for supplying a vapor-gas mixture and a sub-rocket chamber into which the vapor-gas enters. The gas, leaving the PAD, passes through the chamber with water, is partially cooled and, entering the lower part of the launch cup, pushes the rocket out with an acceleration of about 10g. The rocket exits the mine at a speed of approximately 50 m/s. When the rocket moves up, the membrane ruptures and outboard water begins to flow into the mine. The shaft cover closes automatically after the rocket exits. Water from the mine is pumped into a special replacement tank. To keep the submarine in a stable position and at a given depth, the operation of gyroscopic stabilizing devices is controlled and water ballast is pumped

The lack of connections between the mine cavity and the outboard space and the irrigation system devices increases the safety of everyday storage of solid-propellant rockets on a boat. However, it became necessary to introduce mine drainage devices into the basic equipment in preparation for loading after the launch of the missiles. There was a need to neutralize the drained water and carry out work on cleaning and restoring the paintwork of the mines.
ICBMs with rocket engines still need to be pressurized by TB (from nuclear submarine communications).

All problems with the rocket engine and the "wet start" are solvable (it can be completely abandoned)

- the use of pre-launch pressurization of missiles autonomous system, placed on a rocket and based on a metered injection of a fuel component into an opposite tank (oxidizing agent in fuel and vice versa);

- implementation of a "dry" method of launching from an unflooded missile silo, sealed with a membrane that is destroyed during launch, similar to the method of launching solid-propellant rockets. At the same time, the exit of the rocket from the mine is provided by the main engine of the first stage, which operates for the first seconds in the gas generator mode.

[mahor]

"Sineva" is a very good rocket, but for all its advantages, it has a serious drawback - a launch method called "wet start". A nuclear submarine needs to spend a certain amount of time preparing for firing - and therefore it cannot be instantly combat ready. In addition, the noise generated during the filling of the hull with seawater can unmask the submarine and make it vulnerable to enemy attacks.
Is it really such a difficult task: to create a liquid-propellant SLBM, the launch of which would not require the injection of sea water, but would come, for example, from a TPK?!...

The Rubinists refused proposals for the TPK. Now the preparation and start time is minimal and is 3-5 minutes ...

[sevtrash]

Sineva, of course, is a very good rocket. True, there is also the "Liner", about which they did not say anything, an outdated article, or what? However, she - Sineva - liquid, "wet start". And most importantly, the accuracy is 4 times worse than Trident 2, which means that only Trident 90 has a sufficient probability of hitting highly protected targets (1,86% at 200KVO with reaching 2 atm overpressure). The same accuracy determines the need for the number of blocks and their power / mass for a guaranteed defeat of any target, therefore, the effectiveness of the Trident is again higher.
Another thing is that in conditions of total nuclear war and general destruction this will not be of decisive importance.
And the article is so-so - there is an order of magnitude more information on the Wiki.

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: sevtrash

And most importantly - the accuracy is 4 times worse than Trident 2,

The rhinoceros has very poor eyesight, but given its weight, this is not its problem! For missiles with nuclear warheads, jewelry accuracy is not required.

And the article is so-so - there is an order of magnitude more information on the Wiki.

that is yes.

[retardu]

Well, don’t tell me. QUO is critical. Such missiles will not be used against infrastructure. Their targets are protected command posts, positions of strategic missiles, nuclear munitions depots. That is, targets that are designed to withstand the impact of such ammunition, if possible. And for infrastructure there is another weapon.
And by the way there was already a more informative article from Oleg, if interested
http://topwar.ru/68054-sineva-protiv-traydent-2.html

[sevtrash]

Quote: retardu

And by the way there was already a more informative article from Oleg, if interested
http://topwar.ru/68054-sineva-protiv-traydent-2.html

Exactly, it is much more informative

[mahor]

Well, don’t tell me. QUO is critical. Such missiles will not be used against infrastructure. Their targets are protected command posts, positions of strategic missiles, nuclear munitions depots. That is, targets that are designed to withstand the impact of such ammunition, if possible. And for infrastructure there is another weapon.
And who told you that these data correspond to the truth? Moreover, if we recalculate the KVO according to our methods, then they will be close ...

[zulusuluz]

That's the whole difference: Russia has always built a weapon of retaliation (guaranteed retaliatory strike), and the United States - a weapon of attack ...

[Simple]

Quote: sevtrash

And the article is so-so - there is an order of magnitude more information on the Wiki.

The author is just off topic.

Quote: Author

And one more important factor in our time. For all its positive performance, Trident-type ICBMs, we repeat, are difficult to modernize.

generally touched.
Until 2030, the US Navy in trident 2 d5 is happy with everything (70% US strategic nuclear forces and 100% British strategic nuclear forces)

This is confirmed by almost all launches.

 Show / Hide text

http://www.planet4589.org/space/lvdb/launch/Trident2

Trident III E-6 will take the place of D5, when the time comes

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Just

The author is just off topic.

Here are a couple of examples:

But there are examples of how an underwater missile carrier carried out covert, "under-ice" launch of "Sineva" from the Arctic latitudes with ice thickness up to two meters in the area of ​​the North Pole.

In fact, this is a surface launch of SLBMs from high latitudes. Another SLBM was supposed to have an under-ice launch, but it was sacrificed for the interspecific unification of missile technology (ICBM / SLBM).

"Trident" starts due to the pressure accumulator, and the submarine commander, thinking about safety, will always make a choice between an underwater or surface launch.

А about secrecy the commander will surely forget.
I think that with such performance characteristics as the Trident, he will shoot from a submerged position.
But in general, the article is a conscientious compilation of open materials. In good faith, but with the same errors as in the original sources.

[Jackking]

Isn't it a shame to compare the development of the 70s (and the Trident was created in the early 70s) with a rocket that was finally brought to mind? This is not a stone in the garden of the military-industrial complex, but a hint that you need to be proud of really advanced developments, and not the fact that development appeared in 2016. which caught up with the development of 40 years ago.
and a small note - for example, it seems very strange to me that we have already developed the 2nd heavy machine gun (Cliff, then Kord), and rich Americans use the brainchild of Browning of the century before last?

[zennon]

Quote: Jackking

Isn't it a shame to compare the development of the 70s (and the Trident was created in the early 70s) with a rocket that was finally brought to mind?

But is it okay that we haven’t actually been engaged in rocket science for 20 years? But the fact that funding does not even reach 10% of the mattress? Is it not a shame to shame?

[zennon]

Quote: Jackking

and a small note - for example, it seems very strange to me that we have already developed the 2nd heavy machine gun (Cliff, then Kord), and rich Americans use the brainchild of Browning of the century before last?

And a specific answer to the “note.” No, it doesn’t seem. The Utes machine gun was developed at the Tula TsKIB SOO in the late 1960s. For the production of NSV, it was decided to create a new plant in Uralsk, Kazakh SSR, called Metalist, so how production at the Degtyarev plant in Kovrov was overloaded. And the Kord machine gun was created in the 90s as a replacement for the NSV (Cliff) machine gun, the production of which, after the collapse of the USSR, ended up outside of Russia. Developed at the Kovrov plant. Degtyareva. Do you even know that the USSR collapsed in 1991? Or is it strange that the country took care of the production of a heavy machine gun on its territory? Answer smart guy!

[Jackking]

1. You answered yourself. that Utes was developed in Tula, and not in Kazakhstan
2. This does not remove my question about browning - to be objective, we had a DShK. Or is it that much worse than M ?

[zennon]

Quote: Jackking

1. You answered yourself. that Utes was developed in Tula, and not in Kazakhstan

Of course. And what of what is in Tula? And it was designed to replace the DShK.

to be objective, we had a DShK. Or is it that much worse than M ?

Why a replacement? The mass of the DShK is 33,5 kg (body), 157 kg (on a wheeled machine). The mass of the "Cliff" is 25 (machine gun body), 41 (on a 6T7 machine). Enough? With all due respect to Degtyarev, I must say that the gunsmith from him is so-so. All his weapons have been in the museum for a long time. For that matter, Shpagin completely redesigned the cartridge supply system. Degtyarev often worked without calculations at all, by eye. protection. Stalin loved him, that's all. Laureate of four Stalin Prizes (1941, 1942, 1946, 1949 - posthumously). And "Cliff" is very good! Only the USSR collapsed and we were left without a large caliber. Well, "Kord" is a Kovrov machine.

[NEXUS]

As far as I know, "Sineva" will be replaced by "Liner", and there the characteristics are even better ...

[mahor]

The liner is Sineva, only the "head" is different, with the possibility of varying the BB. Therefore, the index through the dot, R-29RM2.1.
Yes Yes.....

[Resistance]

Quote: sevtrash

And most importantly - accuracy is 4 times worse than Trident 2

From fence to lunch. A liquid rocket is, in principle, more accurate. And if the trident was more accurate, then not because the fuel is solid, but the parameters of the BASU elements are higher, mathematics takes into account more influencing parameters. I recall a conversation on gyroscopy, their CMU (the coefficient of the escape model) was calculated using 2 dozen parameters, we have three.

[sevtrash]

Quote: Persistence

From fence to lunch. A liquid rocket is, in principle, more accurate.

That is, the accuracy of a ballistic missile depends on the composition of the fuel? Fence heights? Eaten lunch?

[voyaka uh]

The Tridents are 30 years old. They are kept and not changed due to high reliability.
With 2 test launches per year, there has not been a single
unsuccessful start.

[Andrey NM]

Timing error. Trident I - the beginning of development in 1972, Trident 2 - in 1977. The beginning of the development of 3M-37 - 1979. Our missile was put into service in 1986, Trident2 - in 1990. Which one is new and which one is a relic of the past, as they sometimes say here? The Americans did everything to kill the production of Sineva, they even slipped us installations for the destruction of components.

[Resistance]

Quote: voyaka uh

The Tridents are 30 years old. They are kept and not changed due to high reliability.
With 2 test launches per year, there has not been a single
unsuccessful start.

And what is "high reliability", how much is it? Take it and write, the Americans have 0,999997 - we all gasp :o)))
At the same time, 2 test launches, generally an empty sound, about nothing. Is it: combat training, or control shooting of a new batch supplied by industry, or an extension of expired deadlines, or the elimination (and at the same time training of submariners) of missiles with expired deadlines? :o) In short, well done!

[iouris]

Only after a full-fledged war will it be possible to calculate the actual reliability indicators. By the way, reliability is a complex property that includes: durability, non-failure operation, serviceability and persistence.
Here, as I understand it, it is about non-failure operation.

[iouris]

A strange name for a rocket: "Sineva". Curious to know why?

[Old26]

Bunch of blunders. . Didn't even minus. The author took and mixed all the parameters at once. Maximum throwable and maximum range achieved. And then, without further ado, slyly declares that

The divisible warhead of ICBMs (2,8 tons) over a range of up to 11 km can deliver, depending on the power, 500 to 4 individual guidance warheads.

[3vs]

But this is an idea, to send mail to Kamchatka!
In principle, you can combine business with pleasure - and check missiles and
deliver mail!

[Simple]

Quote: 3vs

In principle, you can combine business with pleasure - and check missiles and
deliver mail!

uh....
about $90 per package?
Not too expensive?
(And Trident 2D5, along with the "depreciation" of the nuclear submarine, crew allowance, AZ consumption under $ 170)

[Wiskar]

Here is a comparison -

[Skifotavr]

The Bark rocket, destroyed by Solomonism, was to become a masterpiece of naval rocket science, which had a built-in system for overcoming the thick ice of the Arctic. It was for her that the Boreas were originally designed, which, unlike the boats of the previous generation, do not have a solid cabin for breaking through thick ice. Apparently, this is precisely why the warm waters of the Pacific Ocean, which are better controlled by the Americans with their Japanese vassals, began to be considered as the Boreev patrol site.

[Markiz_A]

It is necessary to compare classmates, i.e. "Trident" and "Bulava", especially since the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy announced that all new boats will be equipped only with the "Bulava", and boats with the "Sineva" will be put out of action.
And here, no matter how you adjust the numbers, the comparison is not in our favor. Flight along a flat trajectory looks especially doubtful - this gives 5-7 minutes of gain in flight time, but this only matters in the first preventive and unexpected strike. If the US missile defense systems are brought to full combat readiness, this will no longer play any role. And the flat trajectory also makes it possible to fight the Bulava (as well as the Topol, Yars) with the Aegis system, v.ch. placed on ships.

[rubin6286]

From the course "Fundamentals of the Theory of Probability and Reliability of Systems", studied at the Higher Educational Institutions of the Strategic Missile Forces, it is known that the more complex the system, the higher the probability of its failure and, accordingly, the lower the reliability. If we compare missiles only as a means of delivering a warhead, then the Sineva itself is much more complicated in design than the Trident. Add to this additional specific requirements due to the peculiarities of single and salvo launch of missiles with liquid propellant rocket engines with nuclear submarines in the submerged and surface position, and you will see that the system will become even more complex. Trident is simpler and probably safer to operate. If things had been different, they would not have bothered with the Bulava. The sailors can’t wait until the Sineva is replaced, but for now, as in a joke: “For lack of a maid, they live with a janitor, for lack of a stamp they write in simple ... ..”

[mahor]

Quote: rubin6286

From the course "Fundamentals of the Theory of Probability and Reliability of Systems", studied at the Higher Educational Institutions of the Strategic Missile Forces, it is known that the more complex the system, the higher the probability of its failure and, accordingly, the lower the reliability. If we compare missiles only as a means of delivering a warhead, then the Sineva itself is much more complicated in design than the Trident. Add to this additional specific requirements due to the peculiarities of single and salvo launch of missiles with liquid propellant rocket engines with nuclear submarines in the submerged and surface position, and you will see that the system will become even more complex. Trident is simpler and probably safer to operate. If things had been different, they would not have bothered with the Bulava. The sailors can’t wait until the Sineva is replaced, but for now, as in a joke: “For lack of a maid, they live with a janitor, for lack of a stamp they write in simple ... ..”

Oh, these fairy tales, oh, these storytellers! The boat from which the missiles are launched determines the complexity and reliability of the complex. And there is no difference between liquid and solid .... But about the sailors smiled ...

[rubin6286]

To understand and feel the difference between liquid and solid rockets, you need to serve in the Strategic Missile Forces, at least as a soldier in the calculation of refueling the TRB. The more difficult the conditions for the combat use of a missile system, the higher its complexity and lower reliability. That's what I wanted to say. You can’t fall below the Earth, and being on the water surface, you can easily go to the bottom.

[mahor]

Quote: rubin6286

To understand and feel the difference between liquid and solid rockets, you need to serve in the Strategic Missile Forces, at least as a soldier in the calculation of refueling the TRB. The more difficult the conditions for the combat use of a missile system, the higher its complexity and lower reliability. That's what I wanted to say. You can’t fall below the Earth, and being on the water surface, you can easily go to the bottom.

You all have 8K63 syndrome! Sineva-Liner brought to perfection. There ampoule filling for 10 years. And I write again: there is no difference in operation. And it’s easier to go to the bottom with solid propellant rocket motors. The fuel cracked and a big boom, like with Kursk!

[rubin6286]

You can write as much as you like about ampulization, but in Soviet times it was forbidden to do training launches of ampulized 8K84 after 7 years of operation. They were simply removed from combat duty with subsequent disposal. If you yourself ever descended into the head of a silo launcher of an ampoule missile with aggressive SRTs, I think all illusions about the perfection of the design would gradually dissipate. It is one thing to ventilate an underground mine, and another to ventilate nuclear submarine compartments to eliminate the release of SRT in a surface or submerged position. The difference in operation is significant, I am talking about this as a test engineer. To do this, it is enough to compare the requirements of the governing documents. If you did not serve on the nuclear submarine and were not part of the launch crew, ask the crew officers who were involved in this. As for the detachment of the charge from the body of the solid propellant rocket motor, this is a hackneyed topic of controversy. I must say that under modern conditions, charge detachment is detected by special methods. I will not talk about the reasons, but it was found both on newly released products, and on those that were stored in arsenals or stood on the database. Such a defect is more susceptible to missiles launched from PGRK.

[mahor]

It is not yet known how the Mace will withstand pitching and lateral rolling, slamming and other delights of the sea. There are no stats...
and in the article in the picture Liner!

[mahor]

This is Sineva:

[rubin6286]

There are special stands at the test sites that imitate launch conditions from nuclear submarines, including these very "charms" of the sea, and if the Bulava was put into service, then it withstands them and the problem of this complex is obviously different. Therefore, its development and operation in the OBD mode continues.

[mahor]

You can write as much as you like about ampulization, but in Soviet times it was forbidden to do training launches of ampulized 8K84 after 7 years of operation. They were simply removed from combat duty with subsequent disposal. If you yourself ever descended into the head of a silo launcher of an ampoule missile with aggressive SRTs, I think all illusions about the perfection of the design would gradually dissipate. It is one thing to ventilate an underground mine, and another to ventilate nuclear submarine compartments to eliminate the release of SRT in a surface or submerged position. The difference in operation is significant, I am talking about this as a test engineer. To do this, it is enough to compare the requirements of the governing documents. If you did not serve on the nuclear submarine and were not part of the launch crew, ask the crew officers who were involved in this. As for the detachment of the charge from the body of the solid propellant rocket motor, this is a hackneyed topic of controversy. I must say that under modern conditions, charge detachment is detected by special methods. I will not talk about the reasons, but it was found both on newly released products, and on those that were stored in arsenals or stood on the database. Such a defect is more susceptible to missiles launched from PGRK.


The sea is not land for you. The car is put on loading into the submarine shaft, several connectors are docked and that's it! Sensor information only. You must follow the terms of use! No wonder the boat carries 20 tons of documentation! And MIT is very easy to approach their products. Gives numbers from the ceiling. Therefore, there are more chances to explode with their product.

Regarding working off: it was necessary to entrust it to specialists from the SRC! The machine did not go through this cycle, and what MIT was testing there showed an extreme launch!

[rubin6286]

Let's go back to the starting position again. In the article, the author compares two missiles launched from nuclear submarines - liquid (USSR) and solid-propellant (USA). Imagine that all the performance characteristics of these missiles are exactly the same. Which one is better? It seems to me that the best of them, if you follow the probabilistic methods for assessing reliability, will be simpler in design and operation. Based on the content of the disciplines studied in the relevant universities, the design of a closed-circuit liquid-propellant rocket engine (LPRE automatics) used with aggressive components is much more complicated than the design of a solid-propellant rocket engine. This invariably entails the complication of systems and assemblies that ensure operation and launch from a submarine.

MIT has vast experience in creating products, does not give out anything “out of the blue” and “first of all” is responsible for the test results, and then, accordingly, the SRC specialists. It is hardly appropriate to "push them head on". Prior to being put on the database, each product goes through a full cycle of tests, including OBD (experimental combat duty). This is where various kinds of design and production shortcomings are revealed that can lead to accidents and catastrophes of a product or carrier (NPS).

My colleague at VO DAOS would probably say that the article once again "compares warm to soft". LRE is one thing, and solid propellant rocket engine is another. You have to compare the same.

[mahor]

[quote=rubin6286]Let's go back to the starting position again. In the article, the author compares two missiles launched from nuclear submarines - liquid (USSR) and solid-propellant (USA). Imagine that all the performance characteristics of these missiles are exactly the same. Which one is better? It seems to me that the best of them, if you follow the probabilistic methods for assessing reliability, will be simpler in design and operation. Based on the content of the disciplines studied in the relevant universities, the design of a closed-circuit liquid-propellant rocket engine (LPRE automatics) used with aggressive components is much more complicated than the design of a solid-propellant rocket engine. This invariably entails the complication of systems and assemblies that ensure operation and launch from a submarine.

MIT has vast experience in creating products, does not give out anything “out of the blue” and “first of all” is responsible for the test results, and then, accordingly, the SRC specialists. It is hardly appropriate to "push them head on". Prior to being put on the database, each product goes through a full cycle of tests, including OBD (experimental combat duty). This is where various kinds of design and production shortcomings are revealed that can lead to accidents and catastrophes of a product or carrier (NPS).

My colleague at VO DAOS would probably say that the article once again "compares warm to soft". LRE is one thing, and solid propellant rocket engine is another. It is necessary to compare the same.[/qt

I don’t know what they are reading at universities now, but in terms of design, solid propellant rocket engines are in no way inferior to liquid ones. For the sake of interest, read the book at your leisure http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3277541

The problem of MIT is that he climbed into a strange area for himself and squeezed out the SRC from there using dishonest methods. They let the model in the pool for about a year and it didn’t come out normally. And there are problems with it. So the complexes do not rent!

[rubin6286]

I took your advice and looked at the book by I.G. Fakhrutdinova "Rocket engines of solid fuel" M. Mashinostroenie. 1981. The information contained in it refers to the so-called. open press and is of a general nature. In military universities of the corresponding profile, other literature is used, where similar information is presented in more detail, supported by relevant calculations, diagrams, graphs, statistical data, etc. etc., bearing a special or "closed" (i.e. secret) character. To be honest, it’s not clear to me how, in terms of design, solid propellant rocket engines are in no way inferior to liquid ones, because, roughly speaking, a solid propellant rocket engine is a cartridge, and a liquid propellant rocket engine is a motor.
As for the relationship between the customer and the manufacturer, in the 80s they were one, today they are different, but the mechanics (volume and content) of tests, the conditions for acceptance into service have been preserved and not simplified, and with the approval of the State Order, control over their execution has become stricter.

[mahor]

To be honest, it’s not clear to me how, in terms of design, solid propellant rocket engines are in no way inferior to liquid ones, because, roughly speaking, a solid propellant rocket engine is a cartridge, and a liquid propellant rocket engine is a motor.

All large size solid propellant rocket motors require temperature control, impact protection (TPK) and static protection. And the LRE after assembly is a piece of iron. The service life of the Sineva-Liner ICBM:
Currently, serial production of two-stage carriers, combat stages combined with third stages, and on-board control systems for R-29RMU2 Sineva missiles is underway, which are fully unified with R-29RMU2.1 Liner missiles. Unlike Sineva, Liner missiles can be equipped with multiple payloads (warheads of medium or small power classes, various means of countering missile defense). The achieved service life of R-29RMU missiles is 18–20 years.
Source: http://bastion-opk.ru/r-29rmu2/ OVT "WEAPON OF THE FATHERLAND" AVKarpenko

[rubin6286]

In a general sense, I repeat again, a solid propellant rocket engine is a cartridge, and a liquid-propellant rocket engine is a motor, because in addition to the engine itself (a combustion chamber with an injector head and a nozzle, it has rather complex cooling systems for the combustion chamber and nozzles, fuel supply, gas generation and pressurization of tanks, control thrust vector, stage separation, etc., and there are more of these systems than solid propellant rocket engines, therefore, a higher probability of their failure.Ampulization made it possible to exclude the refueling process from the time of preparation for launch, but did not cancel physics.The aggressive component corrodes the walls of the hull over time and the process is observed diffusion. It was not by chance that I told you about visiting the head of the silo. If you look at the rocket body, which has been in the TPK for a long time, then it is covered with a kind of perspiration and looks foggy, only these are not moisture bubbles on the glass, but the very aggressive component. If you already smelled it in the air, then after 40 minutes you will go to another world, because at such a concentration, pulmonary edema sets in. Ampoule missiles with a service life of 10 years are not allowed to launch after 7 years and are disposed of. I think that you will "please" the sailors very much by extending the life of LRE rockets to 18-20 years. Some extend the term, while others go on a hike. Capture the difference. Drop all this nonsense about warhead power, TNT equivalent, the number of warheads, KVO, anti-missile defense systems, and so on. considering that in the field of strategic weapons in the USA and the USSR (since 1991 in Russia), thought works the same way and the point is only in the economic capabilities of the state (including in the field of technology). Quantitative and qualitative parity is still preserved.
It is hardly worth referring to open sources. It is more useful to rethink what is written in the open press, bearing in mind that such publications are controlled and not always reliable. As in a joke: “X is written on the barn, and there is firewood.”

[mahor]

What are open sources? 15 years of work at the SRC! These numbers are real! There is no fogging there, because six months later the rockets are taken out of the boat and sent to the TRB. Now imagine the cost of a solid propellant rocket engine weighing 200 tons and compare it with a rocket engine, and you need it quickly and cheaply with maximum unification with the R-36M ...

[Andrey77]

The article does not indicate the characteristics of the R-29RMU2(3). And there is also no list and references to the literature used. :) Get a minus.

[Elijah]

Finally, another plus of our "Sineva" is the possibility of its use for peaceful purposes. At one time, the Volna and Shtil carriers were created to launch spacecraft into low earth orbit. In 1991-1993, three such launches were carried out, and the conversion "Sineva" entered the Guinness Book of Records as the fastest "mail". In June 1995, this rocket delivered a set of scientific equipment and mail in a special capsule to a range of 9000 km, to Kamchatka.