Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Satan II

  1. #1
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    2,928

    Satan II

    An appropriately catchy name. Supposedly could wipe out an area equal in size to Texas or France.

    (CNN)A Russian missile design company has unveiled the first image of a new weapon in Russia's arsenal: the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile, nicknamed "Satan 2."

    The RS-28 Sarmat rocket "is capable of wiping out parts of the earth the size of Texas or France," Russian state news outlet Sputnik reported in May.

    The image was published by the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau on its website.

    Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borsiov said the Sarmat warhead was capable of destroying targets flying across both North and South Poles, Russian state news agency TASS reported Tuesday.
    An image published by the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau of the RS-28 Sarmat rocket, or 'Satan 2.'

    The missile will have a range exceeding 11,000 kilometers (6,835 miles), TASS said. The warhead will weigh 100 tons and is designed as a successor to the R-36M Voyevoda.


    According to a statement posted on the maker's website, "the Sarmat is designed to provide strategic Russian forces with a guaranteed and effective fulfillment of nuclear deterrence tasks" and is being co-developed with the Russian military.


    The Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau's website describes it as "one of largest research and design centers in Russia for the development of rocket and space technology."



    NATO has been bolstering its defenses in countries along the Russian border amid growing concerns about Moscow's military direction. NATO defense ministers are currently meeting in Brussels to discuss the situation, as well as the fight against ISIS.


    Earlier this month, Moscow announced that it was suspending an arms reduction agreement with the US in which both countries agreed to dispose of 34 tons of plutonium, enough for thousands of nuclear bombs, over what it called Washington's "unfriendly actions" toward Russia, TASS reported.
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/europe...n-2/index.html

  2. #2
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    15,780
    I wonder if this has anything to do with the original "Satan" (doesn't look like it) or if they're just capitalizing on the NATO reporting name for the SS-18 (more likely)
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,199
    I'm trying to think through why the Russians would build something like this, when I don't see that it adds much in the way of new capabilities to their existing SS-18s and surely those would be cheaper to modernize unless they have some undisclosed issues.

    Such high throw weight could be an attempt to reduce the number of deployed missiles to save costs. Although if savings is the goal, why build another large liquid fueled rocket?

    A super high throw weight doesn't seem like it would offer much in the way of flexibility in response when compared to more numerous but smaller solid fueled rockets like the nearly operational RS-26. It also seems a bit questionable to intentionally put so many "eggs" in each basket when the US has been investing so heavily into interceptor technology.

    I understand why you want to pack a ton of warheads on an SLBM. Launch tubes are big and space is at a premium in the environment an SLBM has to work with. The Russians certainly aren't short on real estate for ICBMs however. Why not just retire the SS-18s and go all in on the smaller RS-26? It's solid fueled for easy long term storage in silos while also being compatible with road mobile launchers. More rockets means more problems for eventual US ICBM interceptors, and it has a high enough throw weight to be flexible with regards to MIRVs, MARVs, or a single monster warhead.

    TLDR; I don't get it.

  4. #4
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,706
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    surely those would be cheaper to modernize unless they have some undisclosed issues
    The simple answer: Russia has to depend on Yuzhmash for maintenance of their R-36M2 fleet.

    The R-36M2 were, based on a maintenance agreement between Russia and Ukraine, overhauled ten years ago for a new service life of 25+ years (till around 2018). As such they need a replacement and given geopolitical considerations a replacement not dependent on Ukraine. The introduction announcement timeline is in line with the complete phasing out of all R-36 technology - including the Dnepr space launchers - by 2020.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    It also seems a bit questionable to intentionally put so many "eggs" in each basket when the US has been investing so heavily into interceptor technology.
    The heavy throw-weight is intended to overwhelm interceptors with literally dozens of decoys.

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,199
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    The heavy throw-weight is intended to overwhelm interceptors with literally dozens of decoys.
    I don't see why larger numbers of smaller missiles wouldn't maintain a similar warhead/decoy ratio, or why they couldn't be fired in salvos to reach the desired density based on interceptor coverage.

    Using more numerous but smaller missiles reduces the risk of boost phase interception (from Eastern Europe based interceptors or US naval assets) as well as leaving less of a gap in warhead coverage in the event of mechanical failure.

  6. #6
    Contributor NUS's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Aug 08
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    I don't see why larger numbers of smaller missiles wouldn't maintain a similar warhead/decoy ratio, or why they couldn't be fired in salvos to reach the desired density based on interceptor coverage.
    START treaty limits number of ICBMs.

    And number in the article is ridiculous. "The warhead will weigh 100 tons"? 5-10 tons are closer to truth.
    Last edited by NUS; 28 Oct 16, at 08:29.
    Winter is coming.

  7. #7
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,199
    Quote Originally Posted by NUS View Post
    START treaty limits number of ICBMs.
    That could be it, although RVs are counted in the START limits. It looks like just over two RVs per deployed missile would be sufficient to reach the upper limit of the allowable deployed warheads.

    Summary of New START limits

    • Deployed missiles and bombers-700
    • Deployed warheads (RVs and bombers)-1,550
    • Deployed and non-deployed launchers (missile tubes and bombers)-800



    Interestingly, it appears that Russia has surged above the limit on deployed warheads for the time being with the introduction of the Borei class.

    Name:  NewSTART2016-2.jpg
Views: 330
Size:  84.3 KB
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 28 Oct 16, at 19:31.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Stone Hits Back At 'great Satan' Tag
    By Kansas Bear in forum International Economy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05 Jul 07,, 22:57
  2. Welcome to the Land of the Great Satan, Smiling Mullah Khatami
    By Major_Armstrong in forum International Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 14 Oct 06,, 18:09
  3. The first Great Satan?
    By Major_Armstrong in forum International Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02 Oct 04,, 00:18

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •