RS-28 Sarmat (SS-X-30) ICBM

Russia is reportedly planning to deploy a unit armed with its new intercontinental ballistic missile, known as Satan 2, later this year.

The unit will be based in Uzhur, around 1,800 miles east of Moscow, according to the state-run Tass news agency, which cited the head of Russia’s Roscosmos space agency, Dmitry Rogozin.

It will be operational no later than autumn 2022, Tass reported.
Click to expand...
https://inews.co.uk/news/russia-deploy-satan-2-missiles-military-unit-this-year-1591038
 
Unlike SS-9/SS-18, this was made from the start to be modular. Not just warheads. Good.

To see a missile of that size tossed out of a silo impresses me.

Now, I want to see all-solid, Athena III/SRB-based solids in huge silos similar to that…with that kind of flexibility. Florida only. In case of another Ouamuamua, NEO impact threat. A transient event passes by you can launch a probe at a moment’s notice. An asteroid? Swap the probe out for a nuke.
 
publiusr said:
Unlike SS-9/SS-18, this was made from the start to be modular. Not just warheads. Good.

To see a missile of that size tossed out of a silo impresses me.

Now, I want to see all-solid, Athena III/SRB-based solids in huge silos similar to that…with that kind of flexibility. Florida only. In case of another Ouamuamua, NEO impact threat. A transient event passes by you can launch a probe at a moment’s notice. An asteroid? Swap the probe out for a nuke.
Click to expand...
ATK (Northrop Grumman) looked at an all solid Antares that was estimated at 25k to LEO. Would have made a fine ICBM IMHO.
 
That needs to be looked at again…multipurpose. If there is any part of the triad under threat (Buffs and Boomers in the clear) it’s the Ballistics…as Missileers were always treated like red-headed stepchildren. But R-7 pads had artillerymen up until recently…or is that still the case? An ABMA that never died.
 
I would have thought the Avangard gliders would be much less volume efficient than even that, but then again its shape and dimensions were never published to the best of my knowledge.
 
Josh_TN said:
I would have thought the Avangard gliders would be much less volume efficient than even that, but then again its shape and dimensions were never published to the best of my knowledge.
Click to expand...
I'm actually questioning my memory now, was it 5 or 3? It's possible the Avangard has a smaller warhead too though.
 
sferrin said:
ISP is typically less for solid propellant.
Click to expand...
But doesn't the fuel density and higher thrust more than make up for that? If not, why did the US move to solid fuel? Or rather why didn't they move back?;) I'm aware of the problems with storage early on.
 
Last edited:
The most powerful single nozzle rocket was the Aerojet General AJ-260 about 5.9 million lbs of thrust with the AJ-260X proposed for 8 million lbs
 
Forest Green said:
sferrin said:
ISP is typically less for solid propellant.
Click to expand...
But doesn't the fuel density and higher thrust more than make up for that? If not, why did the US move to solid fuel? Or rather why didn't they move back?;) I'm aware of the problems with storage early on.
Click to expand...
Storage, safety, and density, yes. A pound of solid fuel, while much smaller than the liquid, will have less energy available.

Consider the Titan IV and Delta IV below:

1653850292850.png

Each Titan IV strap-on booster weighs more, and produces more thrust, than the Delta IV strap-on booster. Yet the Delta IV booster has more ISP because it burns for a lot longer.
 
QuadroFX said:
Forest Green said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellant#Advantages
Solid propellant rockets are much easier to store and handle than liquid propellant rockets. High propellant density makes for compact size as well.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
R-29RMU2 20.000kg easier than Trident II with comparable characteristics. Just a note :)

R-29RMU2: 2800kg throw-weight, 8300km range; 40300kg total weight
Trident II D5: 2700kg throw-weight; 7593km range; 59000kg total weight
Click to expand...
The only way they're comparable is they're both cylindrical with fire coming out one end.
 
QuadroFX said:
Forest Green said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellant#Advantages
Solid propellant rockets are much easier to store and handle than liquid propellant rockets. High propellant density makes for compact size as well.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
R-29RMU2 20.000kg easier than Trident II with comparable characteristics. Just a note :)

R-29RMU2: 2800kg throw-weight, 8300km range; 40300kg total weight
Trident II D5: 2700kg throw-weight; 7593km range; 59000kg total weight
Click to expand...
D5 range is 12,000km with up to 12x475kT warheads. R-29RMU2 carries 4x500kT, or 12x100kT 8,300km according to wiki. R-29RMU2 is also a newer missile.

SS-18 (R-36) - 16,000km with 10x800kT warheads. 210t. 32.2m x 3.05m
LGM-118 - 14,000km with 10x475kT warheads. 88t. 21.6m x 2.34m
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
Storage, safety, and density, yes. A pound of solid fuel, while much smaller than the liquid, will have less energy available.

Consider the Titan IV and Delta IV below:

View attachment 678807

Each Titan IV strap-on booster weighs more, and produces more thrust, than the Delta IV strap-on booster. Yet the Delta IV booster has more ISP because it burns for a lot longer.
Click to expand...
From what I can see the Delta IV has about 29% more payload to LEO, but it looks more than 29% larger.

I guess liquid does allow you to throttle the burn too though.
 
I think storage is key difference for solid fuel ICBMs. Holding a liquid fueled rocket at constant readiness can be difficult to impossible depending on the fuel/oxidizer used. For space applications you see mostly liquids as the main fuel source because space operation can be planned weeks or months ahead of time.
 
Forest Green said:
D5 range is 12,000km with up to 12x475kT warheads.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. 7400km with 8x475kt, 11000km with 4x475kt or 8x100kt according to a paper I have. If there is a double-digit warhead configuration (there are indications that it is possible) range would be correspondingly less than 11000km and they would be 100kt WHs.
 
Are the W76s roughly half the weight of a W88 then?
 
Josh_TN said:
Are the W76s roughly half the weight of a W88 then?
Click to expand...

Very roughly, I suppose. There might be differences in PENAID load between warhead configurations that could skew it one way or the other. It does fit the rule of thumb that thermonuclear warhead yield/weight improves with increasing yield, and the W88 is a more recent design of course.
 
Trident said:
Very roughly, I suppose. There might be differences in PENAID load between warhead configurations that could skew it one way or the other. It does fit the rule of thumb that thermonuclear warhead yield/weight improves with increasing yield, and the W88 is a more recent design of course.
Click to expand...
I think in another thread someone mentioned that they could have made an 800+kT 'Munster' warhead the same size as a W87/88.

https://nuke.fas.org/cochran/nuc_84000001c_01.pdf
 
An impressive missile; most impressive in its FOBS role with a single multi-megaton warhead coming from the southern hemisphere.
 
The US kept 54 Titan II missiles for years in answer to the earlier Russian giant missiles. Peacekeeper I suppose took their place till the end of the Cold War.
I assume if the US wanted to it could deploy a similar weapon?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom