Deputy minister of defense Yuri Borisov, told RSN radio that the Sarmat development program is well on track and the first tests of the missile (pop-up tests from a silo) will take place in 2015. The missile, according to Borisov, will be ready to begin service in 2020, as planned.
So, the missile will make an appearance in 2015 as Sergey Karakayev suggested earlier. The new announcement also seems to be consistent with the plan to begin actual flight tests in 2017.
Borisov also suggested that the missile will be able to "deliver payloads" of up to 10 tonnes, fly over the South Pole, if necessary, and overall being superior to the R-36M/SS-18 line of ICBMs. At this point is is difficult to tell if these claims are correct, but none of this is technically impossible. Whether it's reasonable is another matter.
The book
Comments
Pavel, at which test center you would expect the tests? Plesetsk? And from the few former SS-24 silos still intact? Are the deep enough to swallow the Sarmat?
Thanks
Interestingly, on what it will "pop-up test from a silo"? That is what type of initial start will be chosen?
You mean where? If I remember correctly, R-36M was tested in Baykonur (one silo was famously destroyed when the main engine failed to start). My guess it will be Dombarovskiy/Yasnyy this time. There are no suitable silos in Plesetsk.
It's interesting to note that neither Makeyev KB nor NPOmash have much experience with cold start.
In turn, reconstruction of the SS-18 silos from cold to gasdynamic start will demand additional capital investments...
As manufacturer of the Sarmat (15A28) Krasmash is appointed?
http://mail.ckbtm.ru/documents/TheOne_121_Notice.pdf
Yes, it it was declared officially by Makeyev Firm in December...
I, probably, simply passed this message:
http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=360615
10 ton payload and south pole trajectory? If that is the case, the quoted 100-110 ton launch weight figure cannot be correct. To achieve that level of performance, Sarmat would have to be in the same weight class as the R-36M2 at 210+ tons. Remember the max payload for the R-36M2 is 8.8 tons...
to Jon Grams:
The Sarmat will be in a 100-ton class...
Not 210+
The original payload for Sarmat was listed as 4.35 tons with a 100/110 ton launch weight. If the launch weight is indeed in that range, then Borisov's statement about a 10 ton payload is incorrect. There is no way a missile of that size can carry such a heavy payload at intercontinental range, to say nothing of a South Pole trajectory. Sarmat is the exact same size as UR-100N, therefore I can't see how it could be "superior" to the R-36M2. Engine specific impulse would have to double, which is impossible. The current UDMH/N2O2 engines are close to the theoretical maximum isp as it is...
The older missile built in 80's made extensive use of maraging steel , if Sarmat uses extensive use of carbon-carbon composite for motor casing ,heat shield etc can reduce the weight of missile by 40 %.
Gelled Fuel and Oxidiser would be more safer with better isp and likely want we might see not the old UDMH fuel
That would be impressive indeed if they go that route with the design...
Judging from the weight, there is a high possibility that Sarmatian body made of carbon-carbon composite and the rocket propulsion thruster cone made out of carbon-titanium composite, therefore Sarmat have ability to carry payload up to 10 tons.
Jon AFAIK , Bulava has taken similar route extensive use of composite material has reduced its weight to ~ 36.8 T with a throw up weight of 1150 kg almost comparable to Topol-M ( ~ 1200 kg ) and range as per Bulava designer comparable to Sineva which is ~ 11500km.
Use of composite not only reduces the over all weight but most importantly the gain in range versus payload is far higher compared to maraging steel.The use composite motor casings to maximise fuel mass fraction that is critical to realise long range, especially with lighter payload.
The Gain with Range for Liquid/Gel Fuel Missile will be much greater due to its ability to stop and fire its engine multiple times optimising its trajectory and Energy hence ability to fly across North Pole.
Austin and colleagues: A bit of speculation is sometimes useful, but I'm not sure this is one of these cases. Are you sure you know what magaring steel is used for?
Maraging steel is acronym for martensite-aging steel it is hard and yet machinable steel due to its microstructures modification by temper and aging known by every metallurgist. It is heavy in weight since it used in rocket body structures to stand for dynamic condition during initial flight. However advance in composite in term of structural integrity able to replace maraging steel, hence render to high throw-weight ration and distance.
I know what maraging steel is. I just very much doubt it is used in rockets.
When Soviet Air Force Lt Viktor Belenko landed his MIG 25 (Foxbat) in Hakodate airfield, Japan in 1976, Japanese air force examined the aircraft and to their astonishment that the plane wings were made out of steel which is never been considered in western made fighter jet, their conclusion that the Mig 25 is purely interceptor. Here I point out "steel" is used. There fore its not highly surprised if Russia, SS-18 Satan (Voyevoda/R-36M2/RS-20V/15A18M)made out of maraging steel especially to withstand dynamic and hydrostatic condition in the prelaunch mode. Advanced in composite materials in the 2000s carbon-titanium and carbon-caarbon composites for rocket body, liquid oxygen, oxydizer tanks and thruster cone like in Sarmation, its likely that 110ton weight able to carry payload for up to 10 tons
Or it's that "maraging steel" or "hydrostatic condition in the prelaunch mode" sounds mysterious and somehow very advanced. There are also things like "hypersonic maneuverable warhead" etc. I would suggest stopping the discussion here and not going down this particular path.