Military Review

Russian "Blue" against the American "Trident"

81
Russian "Blue" against the American "Trident"



Underwater-based Sinev ballistic missile surpasses the American equivalent Trident-2 in a number of characteristics
The successful, already 27, December launch of the 12 December of the Sineva ballistic missile from the atomic strategic missile cruiser Verkhoturye confirmed: Russia has weapon retaliation. The rocket overcame about 6 thousands of kilometers and struck a conventional goal at the Kamchatka Kura range. By the way, the Verkhoturie submarine is a deeply modernized version of the atomic submarines of the Delphin-class 667BDRM project (Delta-IV according to NATO classification), which today form the basis of the strategic nuclear deterrent naval forces.

For those who jealously monitor the state of our defensive capabilities, this is not the first and rather familiar message about successful launches of the Blue. In the current rather alarming international situation, many are interested in the issue of the capabilities of our missile in comparison with the closest foreign counterpart - the American UGM-133A Trident-II D5 (Trident-2) missile, and the Trident-2 is in use.

Ice "Sinev"


The R-29RMU2 “Sineva” missile is intended for hitting strategic enemy targets at intercontinental distances. It is the main armament of strategic missile cruisers of the 667BDRM project and is based on the R-29РМ ICBM. According to NATO classification - SS-N-23 Skiff, under the START Treaty - PCM-54. It is a three-stage liquid three-stage intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) of a third-generation submarine-based submarine. After being put into service in the 2007 year, it was planned to launch about 100 Sinev missiles.

The starting weight (payload) of the "Blue" does not exceed 40,3 tons. Depending on the power from 2,8 to 11, individual targeting warheads can deliver a split head part of an MBR (500 tons) to a range of 4 10 km.

The maximum deviation from the target when starting from depth to 55 m does not exceed 500 m, which is ensured by an efficient onboard control system using astrocorrection and satellite navigation. To overcome the enemy's missile defense, Sinev can be equipped with special means and use a flat flight trajectory.

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


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

American “Trident” - “Trident-2”

The solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile of a sea submarine-based "Trident-2" was put into service in the 1990 year. It has a lighter modification - "Trident-1" - and is designed to hit strategic targets in the territory of the enemy; Solved problems are similar to the Russian "Blue". Missile equipped with American submarines SSBN-726 class "Ohio". In 2007, its mass production was discontinued.

With a starting mass of 59 tons of ICBMs, the Trident-2 is capable of delivering payloads weighing 2,8 tons to remove 7800 km from the launch site. The maximum range in 11 300 km can be achieved by reducing the weight and the number of warheads. As a payload, the rocket can carry 8 and 14 warheads of individual guidance of medium (W88, 475 kt) and low (W76, 100 kt) power, respectively. The circular deviation of these blocks from the target is 90 – 120 m.

Comparison of the characteristics of missiles "Sinev" and "Trident-2"

On the whole, Sinev is not inferior in its main characteristics, and in some cases surpasses the American ICBM Trident-2. At the same time, our rocket, in contrast to the overseas counterpart, has great potential for modernization. In 2011, a new version of the rocket, the R-2014HRMU29 Liner, was tested and adopted in 2.1. In addition, the P-29RMU3 modification, if necessary, can replace the solid-fuel ICBM Bulava.

Our “Sineva” is the best in the world in terms of energy-mass perfection (the ratio of the mass of a combat load to the starting mass of a rocket, reduced to a single flight range). This indicator in 46 units significantly exceeds the similar indicator of ICBM "Trident-1" (33) and "Trident-2" (37,5), which directly affects the maximum flight range.

Sineva, launched in October 2008 from the submarine nuclear submarine “Tula” from the Barents Sea, flew 11 547 km and delivered the model of the head part to the equatorial part of the Pacific Ocean. This is 200 km more than the Trident-2. Such a reserve range has not one rocket in the world.

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

The Russian intercontinental ballistic missile can be launched by a carrier that moves at a speed of up to five knots, from depth to 55 m and waves of the sea to 7 points in any direction along the course of the ship. ICBM "Trident-2" with the same speed of movement of the carrier can be run from depth to 30 m and excitement to 6 points. It is also important that immediately after the start, Sineva steadily goes on a predetermined trajectory, which Trident cannot boast of. This is due to the fact that the Trident starts at the expense of the accumulator of pressure, 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 salvo firing during the preparation and conduct of a retaliatory strike. This greatly increases the likelihood of an enemy's missile defense system breaking through and inflicting a guaranteed defeat. With a maximum start-up interval between the Sineva ICBM and 10 seconds, this indicator in the Trident-2 is twice (20 s) more. And in August 1991 of the year, a salvo launch of ammunition from 16 ICBM "Sineva" by the Novomoskovsk submarine was made, which so far has no analogues in the world.

Our Sinev is not inferior to the American rocket and is exactly hitting a target when equipped with a new medium power unit. 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 follow a flat trajectory. This greatly reduces the likelihood of its timely detection, and hence the likely damage.

And one more important factor in our time. With all its positive indicators of Trident type ICBMs, we repeat, it is difficult to modernize. For more than 25-year service life, the electronic database has changed significantly, which does not allow for the local modernization of modern systems in rocket design at the software and hardware level.

Finally, another plus of our “Sinevy” is the possibility of its use for peaceful purposes. At one time, the carriers "Wave" and "Calm" were created for launching spacecraft into low near-earth orbit. In 1991 – 1993, three such launches were carried out, and the conversion “Sineva” hit the Guinness Book of Records as the fastest “mail”. In June, 1995-th this rocket at a distance of 9000 km, to Kamchatka, delivered a set of scientific equipment and mail correspondence in a special capsule.

As a result: the above and other indicators became the basis for the German specialists to consider “Sinev” a masterpiece of maritime rocket production.
Author:
Originator:
http://rusplt.ru/sdelano-russkimi/sineva-raketa-rossiya-trident-20339.html
81 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. corporal
    corporal 27 December 2015 06: 28 New
    +5
    I would like to know the opinion of the submariners: "Which missile do you prefer on board, liquid or solid propellant?"
    And after that compare.
    ================================================== =
    The GRU had long had to steal the recipe. Although it didn’t work, it didn’t work. hi
    1. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 27 December 2015 07: 56 New
      36
      For 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 was a design miscalculation during the refinement of products , when instead of the standard components, a solution of "chemistry" was poured, due to which an emergency occurred during the pre-launch. Banal sugar syrup was also proposed for use, 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 on coupons. Solid-propellant rockets still have the third stage "liquid", so everything is arbitrary. And one more thing ... Our country does not have so much experience in operating sea-based solid-propellant ICBMs. These are boats of the 941 project and one "alteration" from the 667 project K-140. About the high-explosive "head". There was only an idea, but actually not implemented, as far as is known. We have always done better with liquid-propellant missiles, and the Americans have always done better. The plus is that the liquid theme is more versatile. They fly on liquid and into space. And if the solid fuel "started", then everything, neither stop, nor properly adjust the traction. This is, of course, simplified, but the meaning, I hope, is clear. There are also difficulties with thrust vector control, and a number of other issues. In solid fuel products, the fuel itself, during storage, over time, becomes a blasting one, i.e. can "bang" from a careless blow. In general, any military product requires careful and respectful handling.

      One comment on the article - what kind of specialists do the Germans have in the field of rocket science now? Especially in the field of sea-based ICBMs?
      1. corporal
        corporal 27 December 2015 11: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey NM
        The banal sugar syrup was also proposed for use,

        belay Instead of fuel?
        Or how is mass?
        Explain this point, it became interesting.
        1. Andrey NM
          Andrey NM 27 December 2015 14: 09 New
          +5
          In Hippo, the idea was to check the behavior of the ship during the prelaunch, only two pieces were left for the purpose, the rest worked only to exit the water in the first stage. For the rest, it was imitation of the mass and operation of the systems that was needed.
          1. Simple
            Simple 27 December 2015 16: 21 New
            +5
            Quote: Andrey NM
            In Hippo, the idea was to check the behavior of the ship during the prelaunch,

            ? TWO?

            The task was: the implementation of the experimental multiple launch rocket with RPK SN project 667 BDRM on the theme "Begemot-1" (December 1989)
            During the first prelaunch preparation at K-54 in December 1989 from 16 missiles mocked up in a salvo of 5 mock-ups (30% of ammunition) in automatic mode were excluded from the prelaunch preparation process by the signal "off-design tank pressurization", which led to the correct and natural decision of the commander and leader of the shooting (f / Salnikov) - to stop prelaunch training. The corresponding command was issued to the commander of the warhead 2. Further actions to launch a repeat missile attack were unfounded and ill-conceived. Instead of analyzing the course of the first APP and finding out why there were excluded xnumx 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 1990 year, which ultimately led to an emergency situation, as a result of which one prototype exploded in the mine, and from the remaining emergency ones, the oxidizer was forced to drain.
            1. Alex_2015
              Alex_2015 27 December 2015 17: 50 New
              +1
              On the 6th mine the inscription periodically appeared: "Shooting with covers"
              1. Simple
                Simple 27 December 2015 17: 54 New
                +1
                Quote: Alex_2015
                the inscription appeared: "Shooting with caps"

                there is simply no such inscription on the MSA.
                Quote: Alex_2015
                "off-design tank pressurization"


                And the lid vomited.
                Quote: Alex_2015
                (14 pieces) + 2 real.

                it's in "B-2",
                if I am not mistaken in B-1 I wanted 5 pieces
            2. Andrey NM
              Andrey NM 27 December 2015 18: 42 New
              +2
              Respected Simple, actually it was the second corps of the BDRM, K-84, not K-54. The fact of the matter is that the use of that very chemical solution led to this abnormal situation. The worst thing is that these properties manifested themselves only after a certain period of storage of the products, before that the test firing took place without problems. It is good that the rest of the products remained in the mines, which made it possible to understand 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. He served in the same crew with one of the KGSs, he was promoted, so who, where and how ran through the compartments during the situation, I know first-hand. Yes, the cover of the sixth was torn off, it flew over the hull, pierced the Central City Hospital in the area of ​​the left side of the 2nd compartment and drowned. On the second "hippo" the problem of mass imitation was solved in a different way. Two products were practical, the rest, as you say, "dummies".
              1. Simple
                Simple 28 December 2015 17: 15 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey NM
                it was the second building of the BDRM, K-84, not K-54.

                I know .
                In June 1989 in the Barents Sea from a submarine of the project 667 BDRM
                Yekaterinburg were completed with positive results:
                single launch and two-rocket launcher in August – September of the same year were
                Sixteen experimental missiles (3 M-37 BK) were loaded and sent to Severodvinsk for carrying out volley fire with full ammunition ..

                3 M-37 BK is refueled at the factory with the same standard component as the combat remote control operating at 20 sec.
                No "experimental"
                Quote: Andrey NM
                chemical solution
                -no.
                And the same sugar syrup


                In December 1989, the tests were unsuccessful due to the failure of prelaunch preparation due to abnormal pressurization of tanks five out of sixteenand missiles gathered in a salvo (December 5) and a boat leaving the launch corridor of the depths (December 26).

                The defect carried out by the specialists of the Design Bureau of Engineering and the Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant determined that the obstruction of the highway was the cause of the emergency boost
                pressure control in fuel tankdue to electrochemical corrosion of the walls of pipelines. After adjusting the documentation, liquid fuel simulator (for me, it remains a mystery what happened, because the 3 M-37 BC is refueled with a standard component for 20 seconds of work, we can conclude that instead of ballast this component swelled both in 2 and 3) , which caused corrosion, was replaced by metal ballast and quartz sand. The commission on military-industrial issues decided to re-launch multiple launch rocket ammunition, consisting of fourteen experimental and two
                full-time missiles R-29 RM.
          2. Alex_2015
            Alex_2015 27 December 2015 17: 47 New
            0
            BegeMot = BM = Throwing Layouts (14 pieces) + 2 real ones.
        2. Simple
          Simple 28 December 2015 14: 21 New
          0
          Quote: Corporal
          Explain this point, it became interesting.

          human wedges on the sweet.
          Quote: Andrey NM
          For the rest, I needed exactly simulation of mass and operation of systems.

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

          and p 793 kg / m³ at UDMH, the "sweet lover" probably reached by gassing the syrup, or (why be shy?) by filling the tank with ether.
          Moreover, well, it doesn’t come to what if
          Quote: Andrey NM
          the rest worked only to exit the water in the first stage.


          then for the simulator of the mass of the remaining steps, at least sand, at least sawdust, and at least pig-iron blanket pounded in the CM are enough.
          This is if you do not check the performance
          Quote: Just
          pressure switch
          , other fittings, etc.
      2. Simple
        Simple 27 December 2015 16: 11 New
        -1
        Quote: Andrey NM
        Over the entire life of the 3M-37 rocket and its modifications there was not a single (pah-pah) emergency

        there were many unsuccessful launches.
        And the service ...
        While the ICBM is not de-ampulized, it is not dangerous. So with ICBMs with LRE from the 2th generation, with 1970's.
        Quote: Andrey NM
        but the design miscalculation turned out to be the fault when finalizing the products,

        ?
        Accident that sometimes attributed to the rocket P-29RM, took place in the 1989 year when testing on the subject "Hippopotamus" and it did not happen with a rocket, but with her layout. The cause of the accident was a design error (the corrosive properties of the material of the pressure signaling tube in the fuel simulator medium were not taken into account, as a result of which its patency was impaired) in combination with violation of the operating documentation that led to the shutdown of the pressure blocking indicators.
        Quote: Andrey NM
        but there the fault was a design miscalculation during the refinement of products, when instead of standard components, a solution of "chemistry" was poured,

        UDMH + AT. Amplification ONLY at the FACTORY manufacturer. What sugar? What kind of syrup? Which 400tn?
        to simulate the density, viscosity, aggressiveness ATNDMG sugar syrup is not needed. Stupidity is
        Amplification by welding of filling and drainage valves at the ZI. Thus, the following were excluded:
        - Regular missile refueling on the shore;
        - refueling of submarine tanks from the shore;
        - refueling missiles from submarine tanks;
        - and also proved to be excess capacity for storing rocket fuel at the bases.


        Quote: Andrey NM
        Solid-propellant rockets still have the third stage "liquid", so everything is conditional


        - resistance of missiles to the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion
        Quote: Andrey NM
        Our country does not have such extensive experience in operating solid-fuel sea-based ICBMs.

        - from 1960 to 1990 year domestic solid propellant marine ballistic missiles could not achieve the performance characteristics, comparable to either our liquid or American solid fuel.
        Quote: Andrey NM
        There are also difficulties with the control of the thrust vector, and a number of points.

        At the trident 2 D5, the engines of all three stages have a swinging recessed nozzle with UVT (in pitch and yaw)
        Quote: Andrey NM
        In solid fuel products, the fuel itself, during storage, over time, passes into the category of blasting, i.e. can "bang" from a careless blow

        The consequences of recent missile accidents with submarines are more dependent on the architecture of the submarine, not the type of fuel used. So, for example, the accident with the P-39 in a submarine of the 941 project in 1991 caused by the destruction of a rocket occurred after an abnormal boost of a missile shaft, and not an interstage compartment, when two malfunctions were combined.

        The achieved operating life of liquid and solid-fuel rockets as a result of work to extend the service life are the same - 12 years over the warranty period.
        1. Andrey NM
          Andrey NM 27 December 2015 19: 49 New
          +1
          Quote: Just
          there were many unsuccessful launches

          Do not tell me when?

          The accident, which is sometimes attributed to the R-29RM rocket, took place in 1989 during tests on the Hippopotamus and it happened not 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 signaling tube in the fuel simulator medium were not taken into account, as a result of which its patency was impaired) in combination with violation of the operating documentation that led to the shutdown of the pressure blocking indicators.

          You do not confuse the layout with a specially designed missile for testing. These are different products.
          UDMH + AT. Amplification ONLY at the FACTORY manufacturer. What sugar? What kind of syrup? Which 400tn?
          to simulate the density, viscosity, aggressiveness ATNDMG sugar syrup is not needed. Stupidity is

          No one set the task to imitate the aggressiveness of the SRT. The task was to simulate the density and, accordingly, the mass of components, for this there were different proposals, including a sugar solution. A solution of zinc nitrate, which presented a surprise, was revealed.
          1. Simple
            Simple 27 December 2015 20: 51 New
            -1
            Quote: Andrey NM
            Do not tell me when?

            SKB-385, Design Bureau of Engineering, State Regional Center “Design Bureau named after Academician V.P. Makeev
            November 1982 of the year, at the ground stand at 1983, with K-51 “Name of the XXVI Congress of the CPSU” 667BDRM at 1983-1984 at the State Central Testing Ground near Severodvinsk (12 launches were made, of which 10 were recognized as successful), 27 two years 1985 recognized as unsuccessful in one gulp
            Quote: Andrey NM
            You do not confuse the layout with a specially designed missile for testing. These are different products.

            I usually don’t confuse. What?
            What kind of mockup with sugar syrup do you seem to be writing?
            Quote: Andrey NM
            The task was to simulate the density and, accordingly, the mass of components,

            In order to simulate density, even my children do not need sugar syrup. This is stupidity.
            Quote: Andrey NM
            The task was to simulate density

            Quote: Just
            The task was: the implementation of the experimental multiple launch rocket with RPK SN project 667 BDRM on the theme "Begemot-1" (December 1989)

            Rough:
            passed the test, the missile shaft is filled with water and the pressure in it is equalized with outboard. Then the lid of the rocket mine opens. After opening the shaft cover, the first stage marching rocket engine is launched directly into it. So that the mine is not smashed to smithereens, the LRE is throttled (at partial power) and at this low power it goes relatively smoothly, according to a special program. In the throttled thrust mode of the engine of the first stage, the rocket leaves the mine, passes the underwater start section and, and when it jumps to the surface, the first stage engine is transferred to the maximum, at which it works until the first stage is separated.
            experiment with syrup, not what.
            SLBM simply does not exit the mine (we do not pad and not a steam generator).
            1. mahor
              mahor 20 January 2016 16: 56 New
              0
              Failures were on the R-27 car due to an unsuccessful BSAU. After testing, there were no failures, with the exception of the mistakes of sailors. bully
        2. Andrey NM
          Andrey NM 27 December 2015 20: 01 New
          +2
          Quote: Just
          Amplification by welding of filling and drainage valves at the ZI. Thus, the following were excluded:
          - Regular missile refueling on the shore;
          - refueling of submarine tanks from the shore;
          - refueling missiles from submarine tanks;
          - and also proved to be excess capacity for storage of 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

          And now surpassed?

          The consequences of recent missile accidents involving submarines are more dependent on the architecture of the submarine, and not on the type of fuel used. So, for example, the accident with R-39 in a submarine of project 941 in 1991, connected with the destruction of a rocket, occurred after an abnormal boost of a missile shaft, and not an interstage compartment with a combination of two malfunctions

          And here is the architecture of the submarine? In general, what do you mean by this? But the emergency worker, I know this, quickly quit then. Gossip and lack of knowledge of equipment is the cause of that accident.

          Quote: Just
          The achieved operating life of liquid and solid fuel rockets as a result of work to extend the service life are the same - 12 years over the warranty period

          I don’t know about “solid” ones, but “liquid” numbers are 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 the oscillating nozzle, where the temperature and pressure are not small, but there is nothing to cool.
          1. Simple
            Simple 27 December 2015 20: 36 New
            -2
            Quote: Andrey NM
            Speech about what?

            About sugar, about syrup.
            Everything is in the factory, therefore
            Quote: Andrey NM
            Sugar solution was offered by one of the civil experts,
            no way possible

            Quote: Andrey NM
            And now surpassed?

            No, of course. Even the Medals for Sochi -2014 were made at a chemical plant in the UAE.
            Or do you believe that there is a "military" caliper, screwdriver, chemical components, etc.?
            Quote: Andrey NM
            what do you mean by that?

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

            The main elements that make up the architecture of submarines usually include:
            the shape of the outer contours of the body and protruding parts;
            architectural-constructive type of submarine, which, depending on the presence of a light body along the length of a solid body, can be called:
            single-hull - there is no light body along the entire length;
            double-shell - a lightweight housing along the entire length covers a durable housing;
            mixed or partially single-hull - a combination of single-hull and two-hull sections along the length of a strong hull;
            the configuration of a durable hull and the distribution of the space inside it into functional or other components by inter-compartment bulkheads, decks, platforms, etc.
            number and location of propeller shafts.
            The concept of "architecture" can 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 arrangement of technical means ensuring survivability of submarines.
            Quote: Andrey NM
            there is no such thing as "de-ampulization", they always said "de-ampulization".

            The essence of this does not change
            http://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionary/[email protected]
            fDictionary
            "Unampulization" - 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 about the realities.

            "Thanks to ampulization, a rocket with a liquid-propellant engine can be on alert in a fueled state for up to 20 years or more."
            Quote: Andrey NM
            It’s 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 fuel rocket engines are extremely simple in design. They essentially have two main parts: a combustion chamber and a jet nozzle. The fuel tank is the combustion chamber itself.
            but to get traction (not ut and woo) in hundreds (thousands) tons, you need to do F-1 or a bunch. What is not acceptable for military purposes
            1. Andrey NM
              Andrey NM 28 December 2015 06: 26 New
              +3
              Quote: Just
              In the practice of underwater shipbuilding, the architecture of a submarine refers to the features of the external appearance, shape and structure of the hull, fencing, plumage, and other protruding parts

              Dear trainee, how do the shape of the plumage and protruding parts affect the boost parameters?
              In practice, the Soviet and Russian boats were two-hull, and one and a half hull, single-hull, we have not received distribution. So I was taught in school and academy. Maybe the teachers were wrong there, I don’t know.
              To talk about the terms used, you need not dig on the Internet, but serve on these ships and work at the factory. Are you not going to Krasnoyarsk? At KRASMASH now different specialists are needed.
              By the way, the 941st project is how many-hull?
              Too shy to ask, why was zinc nitrate poured into the product? And what were the substitution options?
              How is the layout different from the product?

              About sugar, about syrup.
              Everything is in the factory, therefore
              Quote: Andrew NM
              Sugar solution was offered by one of the civil experts,
              no way possible

              And Viktor Petrovich Makeev in what rank was? Or is it still civil? And Solomon? And representatives of warranty supervision in what uniforms go?

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

              Quote: Just
              I'm about the realities.

              And I'm talking about specific numbers and deadlines.

              Quote: Just
              SKB-385, Design Bureau of Engineering, State Regional Center “Design Bureau named after Academician V.P. Makeev
              November 1982 of the year, at the ground stand at 1983, with K-51 “Name of the XXVI Congress of the CPSU” 667BDRM at 1983-1984 at the State Central Testing Ground near Severodvinsk (12 launches were made, of which 10 were recognized as successful), 27 two years 1985 recognized as unsuccessful in one gulp

              Again. During the operation after being put into service, there was not a single unsuccessful launch, as well as an emergency. We have already spoken about the first "hippo". What does the stage of testing and development have to do with it? A lot of products and on what complexes at the stages before being put into service flew immediately and without comment?
              1. Simple
                Simple 28 December 2015 14: 09 New
                -2
                Quote: Andrey NM
                Dear intern,

                Dear narcissistic "specialist submariner" .... do not burst with skepticism!
                The question was:
                Quote: Andrey NM
                what do you mean by that?
                (under "PL architecture").
                I replied. Then you can puff and the bishop can be mentioned in the sou
                Quote: Andrey NM
                To talk about the terms used, you need not to dig into the Internet

                I myself will decide what I "need" and what is not "sugar and syrup you are our" reseller of other people's tales.
                Quote: Andrey NM
                In hippo the idea was to check the behavior of the ship during the prelaunch, on purpose left only two pieces, the rest worked only to exit the water in the first stage.


                And indicate your wife's "need" (if any)
                Quote: Andrey NM
                And what were the substitution options?

                793 kg / m³ UDMH, AT 1,44 g / cm³ (master translation in kg / m³?)

                Sea water at T = 20grS has 1,01 – 1,05g / cm³, but the dead sea is 1,3-1,4 g / sq. cm³
                http://www.calc.ru/plotnost-vody.html
                Glycerin 1,260g / sq. cm³

                Vaseline oil 0,800g / sq. cm³, the density of Poplar 0,350 - 0,500g / sq. cm³.
                Do you need to explain?
                And you with a written-off shell with 40-45% sugar concentration in water at T = 15 grS rush.
                Stupidity? Oh yeah!
                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, metal salt is not poured, Pour SOLUTION), too.


                Quote: Andrey NM
                Don't tell anyone else about throttling

                --->
                Quote: Just
                Indicate your wife (if any)
                Quote: Andrey NM
                And I'm talking about specific numbers and deadlines.

                in the verbiage you wrote, except for rumors (aliens) - not a single SPECIFIC figure
                Quote: Andrey NM
                Again. During the operation after taking into service, not a single unsuccessful launch was

                Once again, for those who cannot read:
                Quote: Just
                there were many unsuccessful launches .
                And the service ...
                While the ICBM is not de-ampulized, it is not dangerous. So with ICBMs with LRE from the 2th generation, with 1970's.


                the question was
                Quote: Andrey NM
                Do not tell me when?

                The answer is given.
                Questions?
                Quote: Andrey NM
                During the operation after the adoption of a single unsuccessful launch

                Did I say the opposite?
                1. Andrey NM
                  Andrey NM 28 December 2015 15: 24 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Just
                  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, metal salt is not poured, Pour SOLUTION), too.

                  When doing reprints, correct mistakes, otherwise square-cubic centimeters are not very somehow ...
                  It was a solution, if you read it carefully, and you thought that it was poured with 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 a fuel simulator? Wednesday is not the day of the week in this case?
                  Quote: Andrew NM
                  Again. During the operation after taking into service, not a single unsuccessful launch was

                  Once again, for those who cannot read:
                  Quote: Just
                  there were many unsuccessful launches.
                  And the service ...
                  While the ICBM is not de-ampulized, it is not dangerous. So with ICBMs with LRE from the 2th generation, with 1970's.

                  You contradict yourself. When were the unsuccessful launches after taking 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 a person who understands, then no one will tell you specific things here (and not only). And about the "hippos" - a quarter of a century has already passed.

                  And indicate your wife's "need" (if any)

                  Well, still lips pout left and burst into tears. Okay, I'm sorry if I went too far somewhere. But there really is no throttling there, you forgive me.
                  1. Simple
                    Simple 28 December 2015 17: 04 New
                    -2
                    Quote: Andrey NM
                    When doing reprints, correct mistakes,

                    Not going to, Sloth. Smart will understand, and 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 a solution, if you read it carefully, and you thought that it was poured with powder there?


                    Let's get back to basics.
                    Quote: Andrey NM
                    Sugar solution offered by one of the civilian specialists



                    Quote: Andrey NM
                    . It was also proposed to use a banal sugar syrup, which was well suited for density

                    You, as a "specialist", undoubtedly have an education in 10 grades .... have not thought about what "sugar syrup" is for (again, pour in either 40% or 45% sugar from the volume fraction of water, control T) .. . WHAT WOULD recreate the AT density?
                    I explained on my fingers, How to do it cheaply and angrily and without kicking Gorbachev.
                    And how is it with UDMH?
                    Has carbonated CO2?
                    Quote: Andrey NM
                    So what was a fuel simulator? Wednesday is not the day of the week in this case?

                    Single use experimental 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 an engine of the first stage, fuel tanks with reserve oxidizer and fuel for 20 seconds engine operation with ballast tanks, necessary fittings and onboard cable network. In ballast tanks sealed containers are placed that simulate the free volumes of the second stage to ensure regular prelaunch training,metal loads. Part of the volume of ballast tanks filled with dry quartz sand, which together with metal loads provides the characteristics corresponding to a regular rocket. The front compartment consists of an instrument compartment and a third stage simulator. Almost complete burnout of fuel and the use of metal cargo and sand in ballast tanks ensures the ecological cleanliness of the sea during field tests.
                    Quote: Andrey NM
                    after taking the complex?

                    I never wrote / said this. do not be like kaklam.
                    Quote: Andrey NM
                    Well, still lips pout left and burst into tears. Okay, I'm sorry if I went too far somewhere. .. Forgive me.

                    Nothing, I got used to it and understood. Here, on the site, the main argument is: "Vicky" (face on the table, for using it) and a tunic allegedly eaten by moths with shoulder straps in the closet.
                    1. Simple
                      Simple 28 December 2015 17: 06 New
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey NM
                      But throttling is really not there,

                      1) wrote the same
                      Quote: Just
                      Rough:

                      2) Throttling (drosseln - restrict, suppress) - lowering the pressure of gas or steam when flowing through the narrowing of the passage channel of the pipeline. This is in any case.
                      and in particular:
                      3) For taxiways: throttling is a reduction in fuel consumption. Need to to control the thrust without reducing specific impulse. In fact - the possibility of its reduction by tens of percent of the nominal.
                      -Sudakov V.S., Kotelnikova R.N., Chvanov V.K. On the history of the development of the RD-270 liquid rocket engine for the UR-700 launch vehicle. ХХХVI Readings in memory of K.E. Tsiolkovsky, Kaluga, 2001
                      -
                      1. Andrey NM
                        Andrey NM 28 December 2015 18: 11 New
                        +1
                        About 3M-37BK - everything is correct, but for the second "hippopotamus", otherwise there would be no phrase about the imitation of components that you gave earlier about the accident of the first hippopotamus.
                      2. Simple
                        Simple 28 December 2015 18: 14 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey NM
                        but for the second "hippopotamus", otherwise there would be no phrase about imitation of components that you gave earlier about the accident of the first hippo.

                        Quote: Just
                        In June 1989 in the Barents Sea from a submarine of the project 667 BDRM
                        Yekaterinburg were completed with positive results:
                        single launch and two-missile salvo In August – September of the same year, sixteen experimental missiles (3 M-37 BK) were fueled and sent to Severodvinsk for carrying out volley fire with full ammunition ..

                        Quote: Just
                        In December 1989, the tests were unsuccessful due to the failure of the prelaunch preparation due to abnormal pressurization of the tanks of five of the sixteen missiles launched into the salvo (December 5) and the boat leaving the launch corridor of the depths (December 26).
                        Further there are discrepancies ...
                        The defect carried out by the specialists of the Design Bureau of Engineering and the Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant determined that the obstruction of the highway was the cause of the emergency boost
                        control of pressure in the fuel tank due to electrochemical corrosion of the walls of pipelines. After adjusting the documentation, liquid fuel simulator (for me, it remains a mystery what happened, because the 3 M-37 BC is refueled with a standard component for 20 seconds of work, we can conclude that instead of ballast this component swelled both in 2 and 3) , which caused corrosion, was replaced by metal ballast and quartz sand. The commission on military-industrial issues decided to re-launch multiple launch rocket ammunition, consisting of fourteen experimental and two
                        full-time missiles R-29 RM.

                        already from the beginning of the "project" there was fuel and an oxidizer + ballast.
                        What "chemical" is a mystery to me.
                        In any case, "sugar syrup" is foolish to use for imitation.
                        The pipe along the axis of the tank, the estimated diameter (volume), filled with quartz sand - solves all problems (and ecology in PM)
                      3. Andrey NM
                        Andrey NM 28 December 2015 20: 22 New
                        +1
                        I wrote in a personal. To riddle puzzles :).
                      4. Andrey NM
                        Andrey NM 29 December 2015 06: 23 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Just
                        The pipe along the axis of the tank, the estimated diameter (volume), filled with quartz sand - solves all problems (and ecology in PM)

                        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.
          2. mahor
            mahor 20 January 2016 17: 01 New
            0
            Don't tell anyone else about throttling. There is a time to enter the mode, but there is no connection with any throttling. All the stages there have to be learned by heart "by second". I didn't seem to have any memory lapses, although a sufficient number of years have passed. They taught well.
            Yes, and "LMS" - there is no such concept either. Control equipment has a different name and abbreviation.


            When starting, the steering motors are started, and the main one is started after the machine leaves the mine ... The system is called "steam-gas" ...
        3. mahor
          mahor 20 January 2016 16: 59 New
          0
          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 fuel rocket engines are extremely simple in design. They essentially have two main parts: a combustion chamber and a jet nozzle. The fuel tank is the combustion chamber itself.
          but in order to get a thrust (not ut, and yi) of hundreds (thousands) tons, you need to do F-1 or a bunch. What is not acceptable for military purposes


          Solid propellants are 3-5 times more expensive than liquid propellants due to expensive equipment and materials in production. One welding in argon is worth ...
  • 11 black
    11 black 27 December 2015 09: 04 New
    12
    Quote: Corporal
    I would like to know the opinion of the submariners: "Which missile do you prefer on board, liquid or solid propellant?"
    And after that compare.

    Blue for all 27 launches did not give a single misfire, NOT ONE, 100% reliability + high missile defense potential - a wonderful rocket.
    Here is one little-known video, but also excellent - pay attention to the thickness of the ice that the dolphin breaks through.
    1. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 27 December 2015 09: 19 New
      +2
      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.
      1. 11 black
        11 black 27 December 2015 09: 27 New
        0
        Yes, quite a while ago, some wise guy posted it on the network ...
        And Sergei Rachuk - what can I say, the country is standing on such people, there would be more of them.
      2. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 27 December 2015 15: 43 New
        +4
        But Palych, a mechanic, died several years ago. A good guy, even the language does not turn to say - was. He skips here too. He was a little over forty ...
  • Platonich
    Platonich 27 December 2015 06: 57 New
    0
    This is beautiful, as Russian women and the enemy will stop racing!
  • vglazunov
    vglazunov 27 December 2015 07: 59 New
    +4
    When washing blue, tide is better. Blue is a good way to cleanse or protect the world from villains.
  • podgornovea
    podgornovea 27 December 2015 08: 44 New
    +7
    According to its characteristics, the Bulava is well inferior to the Sineva, except for the convenience of storage and operation.
    The throw weight is 1150 kg versus 2800, the difference is 1650 kg, so you can normally attach additional equipment to break through the missile defense at the final section of the trajectory. It seems that they did this on the Liner. Liquid-propellant rockets have always won in energy and energy and mass perfection.
    With modern materials, encapsulation can be made reliable and safe no worse than with solid fuel.
    1. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 27 December 2015 09: 16 New
      +6
      And they are reliable. All accidents on liquid-propellant missiles during storage and being on ships, starting with project 667b and onward, were the fault of the personnel. Something was not disconnected there, the regulations were violated 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 emergencies. But the same K-219 died not due to the product, but due to 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 "beeches" and BDRs, on BDRMs during the testing period too, but during operation everything was fine, except for the already named first Behemoth, where the products were abnormal.
      1. mahor
        mahor 20 January 2016 17: 08 New
        0
        But the same K-219 died not through the fault of the product, but through the fault of the leaky cover of the mine, which led to its filling and only then destruction and explosion of the product.

        If you open the shaft cover with a crane when the lifting hydraulic system is faulty, then this can not be the case with the boat ...
    2. mahor
      mahor 20 January 2016 17: 06 New
      0
      According to its characteristics, the Bulava is well inferior to the Sineva, except for the convenience of storage and operation.
      The throw weight is 1150 kg versus 2800, the difference is 1650 kg, so you can normally attach additional equipment to break through the missile defense at the final section of the trajectory. It seems that they did this on the Liner. Liquid-propellant rockets have always won in energy and energy and 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. Therefore, he won the competition. And here is the result ...
  • V.ic
    V.ic 27 December 2015 08: 54 New
    0
    "Blue" splashed, splashed,
    On the surface of the sea, heated ...
    Further to heaven she flew away
    Illuminating them with a shining light
    And deliver the warhead where you need
    It will be a worthy answer!
  • wicked pinnochio
    wicked pinnochio 27 December 2015 09: 52 New
    +1
    all the same, we have beautiful names for missiles and different systems, not like the staff
  • antiexpert
    antiexpert 27 December 2015 10: 28 New
    +5
    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 Urals ores - that's where all the unwillingness to develop the project comes from )))
    1. Garris199
      Garris199 28 December 2015 12: 47 New
      0
      but the mace is Moscow, and Sineva is a town in the depths of the Urals ores - that's where all the unwillingness to develop the project comes from)))

      What the hell? Drink something choleretic.
      1. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 29 December 2015 13: 45 New
        +1
        Dear, I will give you an excerpt from the article of the Krasmash newspaper, these are the words of one of the former chiefs of the military mission. I gave you the link to the newspaper a little higher in my messages. Read and decide whether there was a fuss about "pulling the blanket over yourself" or not.

        I want to give a good example from my own experience. In 1999, thanks to the titanic efforts of the Director General of KRASMASH Gupalov Viktor Kirillovich, there was hope for the resumption of production of the RSM-54U at the Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant. It was at this time that I was instructed by the head of the Navy URAV to prepare a report on the impossibility of carrying out such work, citing the fact that KMZ had not been producing rockets for several years, and all cooperation was even more so. I realized that with my hands the opponents of liquid rockets want to stop getting this order. He sent his deputies to the enterprises of cooperation: one to the Urals, the other to Moscow and St. Petersburg. A few days later I had the minutes of the meetings of the management of these enterprises and the military academy of the Ministry of Defense with them about their readiness for the beginning of the resumption of production and with concrete proposals for the organization of work. That's when I sent my report, together with these protocols, to Moscow, the head of the Navy URAF, on the readiness of Krasmash and the cooperative enterprises to resume production of the rocket, which later became known as Sineva.
  • Zigmars
    Zigmars 27 December 2015 11: 11 New
    +4
    "Sineva" is a very good rocket, but for all its advantages it has a serious drawback - a method of launching called a "wet start". A submarine needs to spend a certain amount of time preparing for firing - and therefore it cannot be instantly combat-ready. In addition, the noises generated when the hull is filled with abort water can unmask the sub and make it vulnerable to enemy attacks.
    Is it really such a difficult task: to create a liquid SLBM, the launch of which would not require the injection of sea water, but would occur, for example, from TPK?! ...
    1. rudolff
      rudolff 27 December 2015 14: 10 New
      +5
      Zigmars, R-29RMU3 Sineva 2, which the Makeevka office proposed at Borei instead of Bulava, and is with a "dry" start. Anything is possible if desired. It's just that all of us suddenly became concerned about solid fuel a la Trident, without realizing, but in the name of what?
      1. zennon
        zennon 27 December 2015 14: 58 New
        +4
        Quote: rudolff
        It’s just that all of us suddenly became preoccupied with solid fuel a la Trident, not realizing it, but in the name of what?

        But he wanted to establish himself. He announced that he would do better and cheaper. He did it ... The last hedgehog in the Khimki forest knows that by the thrust impulse of the turbojet engine it will not come close to the rocket engine. I am silent about throttling. But this one got into the manual our little ideas! How much money we have secured on his farts! Imagine what could have been achieved in improving the Makeevsky rockets in 20 years? But only them! But I wanted this title. And when his solid propellants started to break at the start, he said that everything was bad ! There are teapots on the assembly, parts are under his feet ayut not conditioning, duversanty krugom.Ego kicked down as head of the positions MIT.No gene designer this bad dancer was hurt.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 27 December 2015 21: 27 New
        +3
        Quote: rudolff
        It’s just that all of us suddenly became preoccupied with solid fuel a la Trident, not realizing it, but in the name of what?

        Hello Volchara! Glad to hear you again on the site, comrade!
        A couple of comments, if the subfloat allows.
        1. The mace was adopted due to the fact that the SM-3 does not have time to take it at the OUT. The exhaust velocity of the solid propellant rocket gas is much higher than that of the LRE. Therefore, the autoclave of Bulava is 2 times shorter than that of Sineva.
        2. The mace is made (whether we like it or not) using the technologies of the beginning of the 21st century. Composite cocoon with sensors embedded in it, SES buses, etc. - more resistant to the effects of energy weapons such as beam, laser ... the Americans have already tested, and shot down the BR at D = 80km.
        3. Mass and dimensions of the Mace are better than those of Sineva. Therefore, the 955 does not "hunchback" like the BDRMs. Of course there is a superstructure, but not up to 3/4 of the height of the retractable fence!
        PS. Many thanks to Andrei NM and Just Neighbor. I got an interesting info on BM for myself.
        Yours faithfully, hi
        1. sevtrash
          sevtrash 27 December 2015 22: 55 New
          0
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          The exhaust velocity of the solid propellant rocket gas is much higher than that of the LRE.

          The specific impulse of liquid-propellant rocket engines is higher than solid-propellant, somewhere around 4600 m / s and 2600 m / s, respectively.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 28 December 2015 20: 17 New
            +2
            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#
            Regards, KAA hi
        2. rudolff
          rudolff 27 December 2015 23: 42 New
          +2
          Hello buddy! Nice to see you too!
          When I spoke about my enthusiasm for solid fuel, I did not mean only Bulava. Before her, after all, they had been busy with Bark for a long time, but before Bark the famous 3M65 was. Agree, almost a hundred-ton P39 is difficult to call "smart" on OUT. I don't even remember the earlier machines with solid propellants.
          If we compare the performance characteristics of Bulava and Sineva, then we must not forget that the first "raises" roughly 1,2 tons, the second for 2,5! That is, more than twice. What performance characteristics would Sineva have if her "head" was twice as light? As they say, you have to pay for the pleasure.
          Regarding the compact size of the Mace, well, after all, the Makeevka office proposed the R-29RMU3 for regular Boreevsky mines without redesigning the ship itself. Moreover, it was the Makeyevites who developed
          ship combat launch complex
          3P-21 under the Bulava. Along the way, Sineva was also reworked for KBSK 3R-21 and, by the way, with a "dry" start.
          RMU2 is also a machine of the 21st century, after all, not so long ago it was adopted for service. The differences from the base 3M-37 are quite significant: both in the design itself and the "brains" are new. Andrey NM knows better, this is his topic.
        3. Andrey NM
          Andrey NM 28 December 2015 07: 47 New
          +2
          Hello, dragging the boss! Holiday greetings! 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 PK 955 of the open source project is more than 13 meters, while the BDRM has only 11,2 meters. If you put "Sineva" in "Borka", then it will not stick out much either. Well, yes, the difference in length is more than 2 meters, but Sineva is thinner in diameter. Yes, it could be modified if desired. Something tells me that Sineva will serve us for a very long time. A very good car.
          And about "Borei" I heard in the early 80s, when "the elders in the kitchen were arguing."
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 28 December 2015 21: 01 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey NM
            Hi, drag the boss! Holiday greetings!
            And you too, Andrey! I agree with everything, but ...
            A couple of words. 2 m in diameter is 1 m per radius.
            Quote: Andrey NM
            the difference in length is more than 2 meters, but in diameter
            Do not cheat! The diameter differs by 0,1m, and the length - by 3,3m (!) Then, where to put the pumps?
            Quote: Andrey NM
            Yes, it could be modified if desired.
            So no one argues. But this is maskvachi! MIT - called. Poplar flew, but Bark did not. And here is the idea of ​​universal standardization and interchange of parts, assemblies and mechanisms. And Kuraedov turned out to be unstable ...
            Quote: Andrey NM
            Sineva will serve us for a very long time. Very good car.
            I agree to all 155%!
            But here’s what bothers me: BDRMs will last until the age of 30, and then what? Unless, of course, the R-29RMU3 will not be delivered to Borki.
            Regards, Boa! hi
        4. mahor
          mahor 20 January 2016 17: 14 New
          0
          1. The mace was adopted due to the fact that the SM-3 does not have time to take it at the OUT. The exhaust velocity of the solid propellant rocket gas is much higher than that of the LRE. Therefore, the autoclave of Bulava is 2 times shorter than that of Sineva.
          2. The mace is made (whether we like it or not) using the technologies of the beginning of the 21st century. Composite cocoon with sensors embedded in it, SES buses, etc. - more resistant to the effects of energy weapons such as beam, laser ... the Americans have already tested, and shot down the BR at D = 80km.
          3. Mass and dimensions of the Mace are better than those of Sineva. Therefore, the 955 does not "hunchback" like the BDRMs. Of course there is a superstructure, but not up to 3/4 of the height of the retractable fence!

          1. Already in time, even the Dankomm admitted.
          2. What is stopping Sineva from doing technology in the 21st century? There are reserves ..
          3. Increase the size of the boat .. What's the problem?
        5. Markiz_A
          Markiz_A 20 January 2016 20: 35 New
          0
          1. SM-3 and it is not necessary to take it on the Active Section of the Trajectory, because the Bulava's flat flight height allows the SM-3 to intercept it throughout the flight.
          2. It can for Russia is the technology of the 21st century, and for America it is the technology of the second half of the 20th.
          3. And for example, neither the Americans, nor the Aglicans, nor the French have boats at all, although they are made according to the "technologies of the 20th century." Apparently their 20th century technology is more advanced than our 21st century.
    2. Simple
      Simple 27 December 2015 16: 27 New
      +1
      Quote: Zigmars
      a starting method called a "wet start". A submarine needs to spend a certain amount of time preparing for firing - and therefore it cannot be instantly combat-ready. In addition, the noises that occur when the hull is filled with abort water can unmask the submarine and make it vulnerable to enemy attacks.

      Do you think the system for storing and launching missiles Mk35 mod 1 makes less noise and makes shooting faster?

      Before starting in the mine creates excess pressure. In each mine, a powder pressure accumulator (PAD) is installed to form a gas-vapor mixture. In the launcher, a nozzle is mounted for supplying a gas-vapor mixture and an after-launch chamber into which the gas is supplied. 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 with an acceleration of the order of 10g. The rocket exits the mine at a speed of approximately 50 m / s. When the rocket moves upward, the membrane ruptures and overboard 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 and the transfer of ballast water are controlled

      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 fuel rockets in a boat. However, it became necessary to introduce mine drainage devices into the basic equipment in preparation for loading after the launch of missiles. There was a need to neutralize drained water and to carry out work on cleaning and restoring the paintwork of the mines.
      ICBMs with liquid propellant rocket engines still need to boost TB (from nuclear submarine communications).

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

      - the use of prelaunch boost 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);

      - the implementation of the “dry” method of launching from an unfilled rocket mine, which is sealed by a membrane that is destroyed at launch, similar to the method of launching solid-fuel rockets. At the same time, the rocket’s exit from the mine is ensured by the first-stage mid-flight engine operating in the gas-generating mode for the first seconds.
    3. mahor
      mahor 20 January 2016 17: 11 New
      0
      "Sineva" is a very good rocket, but for all its advantages it has a serious drawback - a method of launching called a "wet start". A submarine needs to spend a certain amount of time preparing for firing - and therefore it cannot be instantly combat-ready. In addition, the noises generated when the hull is filled with abort water can unmask the sub and make it vulnerable to enemy attacks.
      Is it really such a difficult task: to create a liquid SLBM, the launch of which would not require the injection of sea water, but would occur, for example, from TPK?! ...


      Rubinovs refused offers on TPK. Now the preparation and launch time is minimal and is 3-5 minutes ...
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 27 December 2015 11: 18 New
    -1
    Blue is definitely a very good rocket. True, there is also "Liner", about which nothing was said, an outdated article, or what? However, she is Blue - 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 200 KVO with reaching 2 atm overpressure). The same accuracy determines the need for the number of blocks and their power / mass for guaranteed defeat of any target, therefore, the effectiveness of Trident is again higher.
    Another thing is that in conditions of total nuclear war and universal annihilation, this will not be decisive.
    And the article is so-so - on the Wiki there is an order of magnitude more information.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 27 December 2015 12: 38 New
      +2
      Quote: sevtrash
      And most importantly, accuracy is 4 times worse than Trident 2,

      The rhino has very poor eyesight, but its weight is not his problem! laughing For rockets with JBL, jewelry accuracy is not required.
      And the article is so-so - on the Wiki there is an order of magnitude more information.
      that is yes. hi
      1. retardu
        retardu 27 December 2015 13: 37 New
        +2
        Well, don’t tell. QUO is critical. Such missiles will not be used against infrastructure. Their goals are protected command posts, strategic missile positions, and nuclear munitions depots. That is, targets that are designed to withstand the hit of such ammunition. 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
        1. sevtrash
          sevtrash 27 December 2015 15: 15 New
          +3
          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

          Precisely, it is much more informative
        2. mahor
          mahor 20 January 2016 17: 18 New
          0
          Well, don’t tell. QUO is critical. Such missiles will not be used against infrastructure. Their goals are protected command posts, strategic missile positions, and nuclear munitions depots. That is, targets that are designed to withstand the hit of such ammunition. And for infrastructure there is another weapon.
          And who told you that this data is true? laughing Moreover, if we recalculate the CVO according to our methods, then they will be close ... bully
    2. zulusuluz
      zulusuluz 27 December 2015 14: 04 New
      +3
      That is the whole difference: Russia has always built weapons of retaliation (retaliatory guaranteed strike), and the United States - weapons of attack ...
    3. Simple
      Simple 27 December 2015 16: 44 New
      -1
      Quote: sevtrash
      And the article is so-so - on the Wiki there is an order of magnitude more information.

      The author is simply not in the subject


      Quote: Author
      And one more important factor in our time. For all its positive indicators, Trident ICBMs, we repeat, are difficult to modernize.

      generally touched.
      Prior to the 2030 US Navy, the 2 and 5 tridents are satisfied with everything (70% US SYNC and 100% England SYNC)







      Almost all launches confirm this.


      Trident III E-6 will take the place of D5, when the time comes
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 27 December 2015 22: 35 New
        +5
        Quote: Just
        The author is simply not in the subject

        Here are a couple of examples:
        But there are examples of how an underwater missile carrier carried out secretive, “Ice” launch of “Sineva” from the Arctic latitudes with an ice thickness of up to two meters in the North Pole area.
        In fact, this is the surface launch of SLBMs from high latitudes. Another SLBM was supposed to have an ice start, but it was sacrificed for the interspecific unification of missile technology (ICBM / SLBM).
        The Trident starts with a pressure accumulator, and thinking about safety, the submarine commander will always make a choice between an underwater or surface launch.
        А about stealth the commander will certainly forget.
        I think that with such performance characteristics as a Trident, he will shoot from underwater.
        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
    Jackking 27 December 2015 12: 24 New
    +2
    And is it not a shame to compare the development of the 70s (and 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 really need to be proud of advanced developments, and not that development appeared in 2016. which caught up with the development of 40 years ago.
    and a short note - for example, it seems very strange to me that we have already developed the 2nd large-caliber machine gun (Cliff, then Kord), and rich Amerikans use the brainchild of Browning the century before last?
    1. zennon
      zennon 27 December 2015 15: 33 New
      +2
      Quote: Jackking
      And is it not a shame to compare the development of the 70s (and Trident was created in the early 70s), with a rocket that was finally brought to mind?

      But nothing that we have not actually been engaged in rocket science for 20 years? And the fact that funding does not reach 10% of the mattress? Is it not a shame to shame?
    2. zennon
      zennon 27 December 2015 22: 46 New
      +1
      Quote: Jackking
      and a short note - for example, it seems very strange to me that we have already developed the 2nd large-caliber machine gun (Cliff, then Kord), and rich Amerikans use the brainchild of Browning the century before last?

      And a specific answer to the "note." how production at the Degtyarev plant in Kovrov was overloaded. And the "Kord" machine gun was created in the 1960s as a replacement for the NSV machine gun ("Cliff"), the production of which, after the collapse of the USSR, ended up outside of Russia. Developed at the Kovrov plant named after Degtyareva: Do you even know that the USSR collapsed in 90? Or is it strange that the country took care of the production of a large-caliber machine gun on its territory?
      1. Jackking
        Jackking 28 December 2015 11: 52 New
        0
        1. You yourself answered. that the cliff 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 he so worse than M?
        1. zennon
          zennon 28 December 2015 18: 26 New
          0
          Quote: Jackking
          1. You yourself answered. that the cliff was developed in Tula, and not in Kazakhstan

          Of course. And what of what is in Tula? And it was developed to replace the DShK.
          to be objective, we had a DShK. Or is he so worse than M?

          Why replace? DShK weight 33,5 kg (body), 157 kg (on a wheeled machine). Mass "Cliff" 25 (machine gun body), 41 (on a 6T7 machine). Enough? With all due respect to Degtyarev, I must say that the gunsmith of him is so-so. All his weapons have been in the museum for a long time. For that matter, Shpagin completely reworked the system for feeding cartridges. Degtyarev worked often without any 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 car.
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 27 December 2015 12: 42 New
    +1
    As far as I know, "Sineva" will be replaced by "Liner", and there the characteristics are even better ...
    1. rudolff
      rudolff 27 December 2015 13: 54 New
      +5
      The liner is Sineva, only the "head" is different, with the possibility of varying the BB. Therefore, the index through the point, R-29PM2.1.
      1. mahor
        mahor 20 January 2016 17: 29 New
        0
        The liner is Sineva, only the "head" is different, with the possibility of varying the BB. Therefore, the index through the point, R-29PM2.1.
        Yes Yes..... laughing
  • Resistance
    Resistance 27 December 2015 12: 49 New
    +4
    Quote: sevtrash
    And most importantly, accuracy is 4 times worse than Trident 2


    From the fence to lunch. A liquid rocket is, in principle, more accurate. And if the trident was more accurate, it is not because the fuel is solid, but the parameters of the BASU elements are higher, mathematics takes into account more influential parameters. I recall a conversation on gyroscopy, they have a CMU (coefficient of the care model) calculated according to 2 dozens of parameters, we have three.
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 27 December 2015 15: 20 New
      0
      Quote: Persistence

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

      That is, the accuracy of a ballistic missile depends on the characteristics of the fuel composition? Fence heights? Eaten lunch? good
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 27 December 2015 12: 56 New
    -1
    Tridents are 30 years old. They are kept and not changed due to high reliability.
    With 2 test launches per year for all the time there was not a single
    failed start.
    1. rudolff
      rudolff 27 December 2015 13: 50 New
      +4
      Voyaka, what Tridents do you mean, what 30 years? Trident 1 has been virtually decommissioned, last launched 15 years ago. Trident-2 is a fresh rocket, produced since the 90s and the last batch is very recent. In total, more than 500 pieces have already been riveted. First of all, "long-livers" are shot. So the Ohio mines are almost fresh.
      1. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 27 December 2015 14: 32 New
        +4
        With a timing error. Trident I - the beginning of development 1972, Trident 2 - 1977. The development of 3M-37 began in 1979. Our missile was adopted 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, even installations for the destruction of components slipped into our hands.
  • Resistance
    Resistance 27 December 2015 13: 18 New
    +2
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Tridents are 30 years old. They are kept and not changed due to high reliability.
    With 2 test launches per year for all the time there was not a single
    failed 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 starts, generally an empty phrase, about nothing. Is it: combat training, or control firing of a new party delivered from industry, or extending the deadlines, or eliminating (and simultaneously training submariners) missiles with deadlines? : o) In short, well done!
    1. iouris
      iouris 27 December 2015 17: 41 New
      0
      Only after a full-fledged war will it be possible to calculate the actual reliability indicators. By the way, reliability is a complex property, which includes: durability, reliability, serviceability and retention.
      Here, as I understand it, it is about reliability.
  • iouris
    iouris 27 December 2015 17: 34 New
    +1
    A strange name for a rocket: "Blue". I wonder why?
  • Old26
    Old26 27 December 2015 18: 37 New
    +1
    A bunch of blunders. . I didn’t even minus it. The author took and mixed all the parameters at once. Maximum castable and maximum range achieved. And then without further ado 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
    3vs 27 December 2015 20: 01 New
    0
    And here is the thought of sending mail to Kamchatka! fellow
    In principle, you can combine the useful with the pleasant - and check the rockets and
    deliver mail!
    1. Simple
      Simple 27 December 2015 22: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: 3vs
      In principle, you can combine the useful with the pleasant - and check the rockets and
      deliver mail!

      uh ...
      about 90 000 000 $ per parcel?
      Not expensive?
      (A Trident 2D5, together with the "depreciation" of the nuclear submarine, crew allowance, AZ consumption under $ 170)
  • Wiskar
    Wiskar 27 December 2015 20: 25 New
    +1
    Here is a comparison -
  • Skifotavr
    Skifotavr 29 December 2015 14: 26 New
    +1
    A masterpiece of naval rocketry was supposed to be the Bark missile, destroyed by the Solomons, which had a built-in system for overcoming the thick ice of the Arctic. It was for it that the Boreis were originally designed, which, unlike the boats of the previous generation, do not have a strong deckhouse for breaking through thick ice. Apparently that is why the warm waters of the Pacific Ocean, which are better controlled by the Americans with their Japanese vassals, began to be considered the place of patrolling of the Boreyevs.
  • Markiz_A
    Markiz_A 17 January 2016 18: 45 New
    0
    It is necessary to compare classmates, i.e. "Trident" and "Bulava", especially since the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy said that all new boats will be equipped only with "Bulava", and boats with "Sineva" will be disabled.
    And here, no matter how you adjust the numbers, the comparison is not in our favor. A flight along a flat trajectory looks especially dubious - this gives 5-7 minutes of gain in flight time, but this is important only in the case of 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 also a flat trajectory makes it possible to fight the "Bulava" (as well as the "Topol" "Yars") to the Aegis system. placed on ships.
  • rubin6286
    rubin6286 20 January 2016 19: 56 New
    0
    From the course "Fundamentals of the Theory of Probability and Reliability of Systems", studied at Universities 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 rockets only as a means of delivering warheads, then the “Sineva” in itself is much more complicated in design than the Trident. Add to this additional specific requirements due to the features of single and multiple launch missiles with rocket engines with nuclear submarines in the underwater and above-water position and you will see that the system will become even more complicated. Trident is easier and probably safer to operate. If things were different, they would not have bothered with the "Mace". The sailors will not wait until they replace “Sineva”, 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 plain ... ..”
  • mahor
    mahor 21 January 2016 10: 18 New
    0
    Quote: rubin6286
    From the course "Fundamentals of the Theory of Probability and Reliability of Systems", studied at Universities 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 rockets only as a means of delivering warheads, then the “Sineva” in itself is much more complicated in design than the Trident. Add to this additional specific requirements due to the features of single and multiple launch missiles with rocket engines with nuclear submarines in the underwater and above-water position and you will see that the system will become even more complicated. Trident is easier and probably safer to operate. If things were different, they would not have bothered with the "Mace". The sailors will not wait until they replace “Sineva”, 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 plain ... ..”

    Oh, these tales, oh, these storytellers! lol 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 ... bully
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 21 January 2016 18: 26 New
      0
      In order to understand and feel the difference between liquid and solid-fuel rockets, you need to serve in the Strategic Missile Forces, at least as a soldier in the calculation of refueling a missile propulsion system. The more difficult the conditions for the combat use of a missile system, the higher its complexity and lower reliability. Here I would like to say this. You will not fall below the Earth, and being on the water surface, you can easily go to the bottom.
  • mahor
    mahor 22 January 2016 19: 33 New
    0
    Quote: rubin6286
    In order to understand and feel the difference between liquid and solid-fuel rockets, you need to serve in the Strategic Missile Forces, at least as a soldier in the calculation of refueling a missile propulsion system. The more difficult the conditions for the combat use of a missile system, the higher its complexity and lower reliability. Here I would like to say this. You will not fall below the Earth, and being on the water surface, you can easily go to the bottom.


    You all have 8K63 syndrome! bully Cineva Liner brought to perfection. There is an ampoule refueling for 10 years. And I write again: there is no difference in operation. And to the bottom go with the solid propellant rocket engine. Fuel cracked and a big boom, like with Kursk! drinks
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 24 January 2016 00: 54 New
      0
      You can write about amplification as much as you like, but in Soviet times it was forbidden to make training launches of the ampouled 8K84 after 7 years of operation. They were simply removed from combat duty and then disposed of. If you yourself went down at least once to the tip of the silos of an ammunized missile with aggressive SRTs, I think all sorts of illusions about the perfection of the design gradually dissipated. Ventilation of an underground mine is one thing, ventilation of submarine compartments to eliminate the SRT emission in the surface or underwater position is another. The difference in operation is significant, I say this as a test engineer. To do this, just compare the requirements of the guidelines. If you did not serve on the nuclear submarine and were not part of the combat crew of the launch, take an interest in the crew officers who were involved in this. As for the detachment of the charge from the solid propellant rocket case, this is a battered topic of controversy. I must say that under modern conditions, detachment of the charge is detected by special methods. I will not talk about the reasons, but it was found both on the just released products, and on those that were stored in arsenals or stood on the database. Missiles launched from PGRK are more prone to such a defect.
  • mahor
    mahor 22 January 2016 20: 10 New
    0
    It is not yet known how the Mace will withstand longitudinal and lateral roll, slimming and other delights of the sea. There is no statistics ....bully
    and in the article on the liner picture! lol drinks
    1. mahor
      mahor 22 January 2016 20: 21 New
      0
      This is Sineva:
    2. rubin6286
      rubin6286 24 January 2016 01: 03 New
      0
      At the test sites there are special stands simulating the conditions for launching from nuclear submarines, including these very "delights" of the sea, and if the Bulava was adopted, it can withstand them and the problem of this complex is obviously different. Therefore, its development and operation in the OBD mode continues.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • mahor
    mahor 24 January 2016 08: 40 New
    0
    You can write about amplification as much as you like, but in Soviet times it was forbidden to make training launches of the ampouled 8K84 after 7 years of operation. They were simply removed from combat duty and then disposed of. If you yourself went down at least once to the tip of the silos of an ammunized missile with aggressive SRTs, I think all sorts of illusions about the perfection of the design gradually dissipated. Ventilation of an underground mine is one thing, ventilation of submarine compartments to eliminate the SRT emission in the surface or underwater position is another. The difference in operation is significant, I say this as a test engineer. To do this, just compare the requirements of the guidelines. If you did not serve on the nuclear submarine and were not part of the combat crew of the launch, take an interest in the crew officers who were involved in this. As for the detachment of the charge from the solid propellant rocket case, this is a battered topic of controversy. I must say that under modern conditions, detachment of the charge is detected by special methods. I will not talk about the reasons, but it was found both on the just released products, and on those that were stored in arsenals or stood on the database. Missiles launched from PGRK are more prone to such a defect.


    The sea is not land for you. They put the car at loading into the submarine mine, dock several connectors and that's it! Information on sensors only. Observe operating conditions! No wonder the boat carries 20 tons of documentation! And MIT very easily fits its products. Gives numbers from the ceiling. Therefore, exploding with their product is more likely.

    Regarding the mining: it was necessary to entrust it to specialists from the GRZ! The machine did not go through this cycle, and what MIT tested there showed an extreme launch!
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 24 January 2016 12: 24 New
      0
      Let's go back to the starting position. In the article, the author compares two missiles launched from nuclear submarines - liquid (USSR) and solid fuel (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 we follow 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 (LRE automation) used with aggressive components is much more complicated than the solid propellant rocket engine design. This invariably entails the complication of systems and assemblies providing operation and launch from a submarine.

      MIT has vast experience in creating products, "from the ceiling" does not give out anything and "first of all" is responsible for the test results, and then, accordingly, the specialists of the State Regional Center. It is hardly appropriate to “push their foreheads”. Before placing on the database, each product undergoes a full test cycle, including OBD (experimental combat duty). This is where various design and manufacturing flaws that can lead to accidents and catastrophes of a product or carrier (NPS) are revealed.

      My colleague at VO DAOOS would probably say that the article once again “compares warm with soft”. LRE is one thing, and a solid propellant rocket engine is another. It is necessary to compare the same.
      1. mahor
        mahor 24 January 2016 13: 51 New
        0
        [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 fuel (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 we follow 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 (LRE automation) used with aggressive components is much more complicated than the solid propellant rocket engine design. This invariably entails the complication of systems and assemblies providing operation and launch from a submarine.

        MIT has vast experience in creating products, "from the ceiling" does not give out anything and "first of all" is responsible for the test results, and then, accordingly, the specialists of the State Regional Center. It is hardly appropriate to “push their foreheads”. Before placing on the database, each product undergoes a full test cycle, including OBD (experimental combat duty). This is where various design and manufacturing flaws that can lead to accidents and catastrophes of a product or carrier (NPS) are revealed.

        My colleague at VO DAOOS would probably say that the article once again “compares warm with soft”. LRE is one thing, and a solid propellant rocket engine is another. It is necessary to compare the same. [/ Qt

        I don’t know what is being read there in universities, but by design of solid-state solid rocket engines, they are not inferior to liquid ones. For the sake of interest, read the book http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3277541 at your leisure

        The problem of MIT is that he climbed into a strange area for himself and squeezed out the GRC using dishonest methods. About a year they started up the model in the pool and it normally did not go out. And there are problems with this. So the complexes do not give up!
        1. rubin6286
          rubin6286 24 January 2016 15: 36 New
          0
          I heeded your advice and looked at the book of I.G. Fakhrutdinova “Solid propellant rocket engines” M. Engineering. 1981. The information contained in it refers to the so-called open print and is general in nature. In military universities of the corresponding profile, other literature is used, where similar information is presented in more detail, supported by appropriate calculations, diagrams, graphs, statistics, etc. etc., having a special or “closed” (ie secret) nature. Honestly speaking, it is not clear to me how the design of the solid propellant rocket is in no way inferior to that of the liquid propellant, because, roughly speaking, the solid propellant rocket motor is a cartridge, and the 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 (scope and content) of the tests, acceptance conditions for armaments were preserved and not simplified, and with the approval of the State Order, control over their implementation became more stringent.
  • mahor
    mahor 25 January 2016 04: 12 New
    0
    Honestly speaking, it is not clear to me how the design of the solid propellant rocket is in no way inferior to that of the liquid propellant, because, roughly speaking, the solid propellant rocket motor is a cartridge, and the rocket engine is a motor.

    All large solid propellant solid propellants require temperature control, shock protection (TPK) and static. And the LRE after assembly is a piece of iron. The life of the Sineva-Liner ICBM:
    Currently, mass production of two-stage carriers, combat stages combined with the third stages, and on-board control systems for R-29RMU2 Sineva missiles, which are fully unified with R-29RMU2.1 Liner missiles, is currently underway. Unlike the Sineva, the Liner missiles can be equipped with multivariate combat loads (medium- or small-power warheads, various anti-ballistic missile defense systems). The achieved service life of the R-29RMU missiles is 18–20 years.
    Source: http://bastion-opk.ru/r-29rmu2/ OVT “WEAPONS OF FATHERLANDS” AVKarpenko
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 25 January 2016 13: 40 New
      0
      In a general sense, I repeat again, the solid propellant rocket engine is a cartridge, and the liquid propellant rocket engine is a motor because, in addition to the engine itself (a combustion chamber with a nozzle head and a nozzle, it has rather complicated cooling systems for the combustion chamber and nozzle, fuel supply, gas generation and pressurization of tanks, control the thrust vector, separation of steps, etc., and these systems are larger than the solid propellant rocket motors, therefore, the probability of their failure is higher. Amplification allowed excluding the refueling process from the time of preparation for launch, but did not cancel the physics. The aggressive component corrodes with time They’ve noticed a visit to the silo’s head. If you look at the rocket’s body, which has been in the TPK for a long time, it’s covered with a kind of vaporization and looks foggy, only these are not moisture bubbles on the glass, but aggressive component If you have already sniffed it in the air, then after 40 minutes you will go to another world, because with such a concentration there will be pulmonary edema Ammunized missiles with a life of 10 years after 7 years are not allowed to be launched and disposed of. I think that you will “delight” sailors very much by extending the life of missiles with rocket engines to 18-20 years. Some extend the term, while others go camping. Catch the difference. Drop all this nonsense about the power of warheads, the TNT equivalent, the number of warheads, air defense systems, missile defense systems and so on. Considering that in the field of strategic weapons in the USA and the USSR (since 1991), thought works the same way and it is only a matter of the state’s economic capabilities (including technology). Quantitative and qualitative parity is still maintained.
      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
    mahor 25 January 2016 15: 30 New
    0
    What are open sources? 15 years of work at the mall! These numbers are real! There is no fogging there, because six months later the missiles from the boat are taken out and sent to the TRB. Now imagine the costs of a solid propellant rocket engine weighing 200 tons and compare it with a rocket engine, and you need to quickly and cheaply with maximum unification with the R-36 M ...
  • Andrey77
    Andrey77 3 February 2016 19: 47 New
    0
    The article does not indicate the characteristics of R-29RMU2 (3). And also there is no list and links to the used literature. :) Get the minus.
  • Elijah
    Elijah 15 June 2016 12: 36 New
    0
    Finally, another plus of our “Sinevy” is the possibility of its use for peaceful purposes. At one time, the carriers "Wave" and "Calm" were created for launching spacecraft into low near-earth orbit. In 1991 – 1993, three such launches were carried out, and the conversion “Sineva” hit the Guinness Book of Records as the fastest “mail”. In June, 1995-th this rocket at a distance of 9000 km, to Kamchatka, delivered a set of scientific equipment and mail correspondence in a special capsule. laughing